Affirmative Finance Ltd v Pearson and Another (Contracts and Options : Agreements for Mortgage or Charge): LRA 16 Sep 2013

LRS Whether there was an effective agreement to create a mortgage or a charge between the Applicant and the Respondents’ predecessor in title – equitable mortgage – construction of standard terms and conditions – s32 LRA 2002 – summary judgment

Judge Hargreaves
[2013] EWLandRA 2013 – 0171
Bailii
Registered Land Act 2002 32

Registered Land

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.521987

Ellis-Carr v Levy (Home Rights : Requirements To Establish Interest): LRA 19 Nov 2013

LRA Family Law Act 1996 – home rights notice – meaning and effect of ‘intention’ in statute – Applicant’s evidence – property never occupied as a matrimonial home – whether husband ever had entitlement to occupy by virtue of a beneficial estate or interest or application – application opposed by Applicant’s husband’s trustee in bankruptcy – effect of orders relating to property made by Registrar Derrett in the bankruptcy upheld by Norris J on appeal – Mental Capacity Act 2005 – CPR 21 – s283A Insolvency Act – s261 Enterprise Act 2002

Judge Hargreaves
[2013] LRAD 2012 – 1122
Bailii
Family Law Act 1996

Registered Land, Family, Human Rights, Insolvency

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.521988

Scottish and Newcastle Plc v Raguz: CA 24 Jul 2003

Leases had been granted. They had been assigned to the defendant who had assigned them again. The last assignee became insolvent and statutory demands were served on the claimant under the 1995 Act for rent. The claimant paid the sums due and now sought them from the defendant. He countered that his obligation under the 1925 Act was as guarantor, and that his obligation might be discharged by a claimant’s wrongful act.
Held: The 1925 Act implied an obligation of indemnity, and was unaffected by any act of the claimant.
The indemnity applied also to any VAT charged to the rent: ‘The original lease constituted a contract for a relevant supply by the landlord to the tenant for which the rent covenanted to be paid was consideration. In view of the terms of s. 89(3) it is indisputable that when the lessor opted to tax the supply there was a change in the VAT charged on that supply. That change occurred before the supplies with which this claim is concerned were rendered. Accordingly the express terms of s. 89(1) requires VAT at the relevant rate to be added to the rent as part of the consideration for the supply by the Lessor to the Tenant. In my view it follows that the default of the Tenant in paying the rent including the VAT thereon falls within the terms of the implied covenant because it constitutes a failure to pay the rent ‘by and in the registered lease reserved and contained’ as amended in accordance with s. 89(1).’

Lord Justice May Lord Justice Sedley The Vice-Chancellor
[2003] EWCA Civ 1070, Times 09-Sep-2003, [2004] LandTR 11
Bailii
Land Registration Act 1925 24(1), Landlord & Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedYeoman Credit Ltd v Latter CA 1961
The distinction between contracts of guarantee and indemnity are real and important and to be retained. . .
CitedHarris v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd ChD 30-Jun-1904
The case concerned the question whether an original lessee could enforce by injunction against a successor in title to the term, a provision in a lease precluding alteration without consent. The ground on which he sought to do so was a covenant by . .
CitedButler Estates Company Ltd v Bean CA 1942
. .
CitedAllied London Investments Ltd v Hambro Life Assurance Ltd (No 2) ChD 1984
The lessors sued the original lessees for rent due under the lease after the term had been assigned to another. The lessors had given a licence to assign and the licence contained a guarantee from a third party to the lessors that the assignee would . .
CitedRPH Ltd v Mirror Group (Holdings) Ltd 1993
. .

Cited by:
See AlsoScottish and Newcastle Plc v Raguz CA 6-Mar-2007
The claimant was the original tenant under two 99 year underleases granted in 1967, and assigned them to the defendant who then himself assigned them. The eventual assignee had become insolvent. The landlord recovered the rents from the claimant who . .
See AlsoScottish and Newcastle Plc v Raguz ChD 27-Jul-2004
The claimant had previously assigned its interest in a lease to the defendant, who had in turn re-assigned it. The eventual tenant became insolvent, and the landlord had recovered sums from the claimant who now sought an indemnity under the covenant . .
See AlsoScottish and Newcastle Plc v Raguz ChD 11-Apr-2006
The defendant had taken assignments of the term of two underleases from the claimant, and then re-assigned them to a limited company with guarantors of the rent, and they in turn re-assigned the leases. The last company became insolvent. The . .
See AlsoScottish and Newcastle Plc v Raguz HL 29-Oct-2008
The lease had been assigned by the claimant to the defendant and on again to a tenant who became insolvent. The landlord had recovered sums said to be due from the claimant who now sought an indemnity from the defendant. The defendant said that the . .
CitedMason v Boscawen ChD 18-Dec-2008
The landlord had opted to charge VAT on part of the rent. The tenant fell into arrears and now challenged a notice to quit which included the VAT. The court was asked what constituted ‘rent’ for the purposes of a demand for rent founding a notice to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Registered Land

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.184868

Bradshaw v Wilson (Beneficial Interests, Trusts and Restrictions : Express Agreement): LRA 16 Feb 2018

The parties had been in a relationship for several years, and had a child together. The Respondent bought a property, funded by a large cash element which he provided and the balance on mortgage. The Applicant owned her own home (where they lived together with their son) but was not able to sell it before the Respondent’s purchase. When she did eventually sell, she paid a lump sum of pounds 30,000 (almost the entire equity) to the mortgagees of the Respondent’s property. She said this was done pursuant to an agreement that she was entitled to an interest in his property. The Respondent denied this. It was held that she was entitled to a beneficial interest in the Respondent’s property but there was insufficient evidence to determine the shares.

[2018] UKFTT 176 (PC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.616298

Nugent v Nugent: ChD 20 Dec 2013

The court was asked whether the court has, following the the 2002 Act, an inherent power to order the cancellation of a unilateral notice registered against a title registered under the 2002 Act and, if so, in what circumstances, and how, such a power should be exercised.
Held: It did have that power. The power was akin to that pertaining to the vacation of cautions registered under the Land Registration Act 1925. Though the 1925 Act had been replaced, in this aspect the law remained substatntially the same, and cases under the former Acts might be applied.
Morgan J asked himself: ‘Was the beneficiary of the register entry entitled to say that the statute permitted such an entry where the alleged facts supported it and whether the facts were as alleged could only be determined at a trial? Was the beneficiary therefore entitled to maintain the entry until trial irrespective of whether the entry would cause uncompensatable prejudice to the owner of the land?’, and answered: ‘I conclude that the jurisdiction, recognised and developed by the courts, in relation to the vacation of cautions registered under the LRA 1925, applies also in relation to unilateral notices registered under the 2002 Act. That jurisdiction applied in different ways in relation to cautions to protect claims which were unsustainable and in relation to cautions to protect claims which were well arguable. In the present case, on the material before me, David Nugent’s claim is well arguable. Accordingly, I cannot order the cancellation of the unilateral notice on the ground that his claim is without substance. The earlier cases where the underlying claim was well arguable only went so far as to require an undertaking in damages from the beneficiary of the caution, as a condition of keeping the caution in place. However, the clear philosophy of those cases was that the court should not allow the beneficiary of the notice to have the protection of the notice pending trial without the court considering the position of the registered proprietor and whether, and if so how, the proprietor should be protected pending trial. The court proceeded on the basis of an analogy with the position it would adopt if the beneficiary of the notice had, instead of registering a notice, applied for an interim injunction. I will therefore consider, in accordance with the philosophy in the earlier cases what the court would do, as between these parties, if David Nugent applied for an interim injunction pending trial and, in that context, I will take into account any adverse effect on Mrs Nugent of the court granting such an injunction.’

Morgan J
[2014] 3 WLR 59, [2014] 2 All ER 313, [2013] EWHC 4095 (Ch), [2013] WLR (D) 516
Bailii, WLRD
Land Registration Act 2002, Land Charges Act 1925, Land Registration Act 1925
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedClearbrook Property Holdings Limited v Verrier ChD 1974
The issue was whether a caution registered in the Land Registry by a plaintiff purchaser who was claiming specific performance of an agreement for sale should be vacated. The effect of the vacation of the caution was that the plaintiff’s claim for . .
CitedFitzroy Development Ltd v Fitzrovia Properties Ltd ChD 2011
A person with a reasonably arguable case in support of the existence of the interest claimed had ‘reasonable cause’ to enter a unilateral notice against a registered title to protect such an interest, even where a court later ruled against the . .
CitedTiverton Estates Ltd v Wearwell Ltd CA 1975
“Subject to Contract” not to be diluted
‘subject to contract’ proposals remain in negotiation until a formal contract is executed. Lord Denning MR said: ‘for over a hundred years, the courts have held that the effect of the words ‘subject to contract’ is that the matter remains in . .
CitedAmerican Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd HL 5-Feb-1975
Interim Injunctions in Patents Cases
The plaintiffs brought proceedings for infringement of their patent. The proceedings were defended. The plaintiffs obtained an interim injunction to prevent the defendants infringing their patent, but they now appealed its discharge by the Court of . .
CitedGillett v Holt and Another CA 23-Mar-2000
Repeated Assurances Created Equitable Estoppel
Repeated assurances, given over years, that the claimant would acquire an interest in property on the death of the person giving the re-assurance, and upon which the claimant relied to his detriment, could found a claim of equitable estoppel. The . .
CitedThorner v Major and others HL 25-Mar-2009
The deceased had made a will including a gift to the claimant, but had then revoked the will. The claimant asserted that an estoppel had been created in his favour over a farm, and that the defendant administrators of the promisor’s estate held it . .
CitedNottingham Building Society v Eurodynamics Systems plc 1993
The court laid down tests for the granting of mandatory interim injunctions. The court should consider whether there was a high degree of confidence that the applicant would succeed in establishing his right at trial. The higher that confidence, the . .
MentionedNottingham Building Society v Eurodynamics Systems plc CA 1995
Dictum at first instance approved. . .
CitedHeywood v BDC Properties Ltd (No 2) CA 1964
The registration of an action as a lis pendens by a non-counterclaiming defendant was held to be an abuse, and although there was no jurisdiction to vacate the registration under the Land Charges Act 1925, the Court had an inherent jurisdiction to . .
CitedHeywood v BDC Properties Ltd (No 1) CA 1963
The registration of a claim was founded on negotiations through correspondence. The Court examined the correspondence, and found that it was clear that there was no possible binding contract existing between the parties, vacated the registration. It . .
CitedTaylor v Taylor CA 1968
Mrs T, by summons under section 17 sought a declaration that she and her husband were beneficial owners in equal shares of the matrimonial home and that the premises should be sold and the proceeds divided equally between them. She registered a lis . .
CitedThe Rawlplug Co Ltd v Kamvale Properties Ltd ChD 1969
Megarry J said: ‘to effect registration of a . . caution is an easy matter, and . . to do so will usually effectually inhibit any disposition of the land so long as the registration remains effective. Registration may, therefore, become a weapon of . .
CitedCalgary and Edmonton Land Co Ltd v Discount Bank (Overseas) Ltd ChD 1971
Cautions had been registered against land to protect interests claimed in a pending action. The action had been struck out at first instance, an appeal to the Court of Appeal had failed but a petition for leave to appeal to the House of Lords was . .
CitedLester v Burgess 1973
. .
CitedClearbrook Property Holdings Limited v Verrier ChD 1974
The issue was whether a caution registered in the Land Registry by a plaintiff purchaser who was claiming specific performance of an agreement for sale should be vacated. The effect of the vacation of the caution was that the plaintiff’s claim for . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land, Land

Updated: 28 November 2021; Ref: scu.519348

David MacDonald v Geoffrey Myerson, John Callaghan, Derek A H Law: CA 26 Jan 2001

The claimant had been involved in mortgage frauds, using the defendant firm of solicitors. He claimed an account following sales of the properties. At the time of the sales, the first defendant knew of the false identities used. The defendants claimed that the money had been paid out, and that the claim was for the proceeds of illegal acts, and he was not entitled to any equitable relief.
Held: The houses had in fact been acquired by the claimant because of the use of powers of attorney, even though under a deceitful name. As to illegality, the documents were not executory, and as complete agreements were valid provided the claimant did not have to rely upon an illegal act. Defendants’ appeal dismissed.

Lord Justice Aldous Lord Justice Mance And Mr Justice Charles
[2001] EWCA Civ 1220, [2002] 1 P and CR DG3
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedIn re Mahmoud and Ispahami 1921
A failure to plead an allegation in a later appeal where the facts at issue had been covered in the trial need not be fatal to that ground being added. . .
CitedBirkett v Acorn Business Machines Limited CA 16-Jul-1999
The parties had entered into a contract, which both knew was to be used to defraud a third party finance company. When one sued the other for breach, the court refused to order the contract to be enforced when he became aware of the fraud.
CitedHalifax Building Society v Thomas and Another CA 29-Jun-1995
Defrauded Mortgagee cannot take surplus on sale
A Building Society cannot keep any excess proceeds of sale of a house mortgaged to it by fraud. Policy was against unjust enrichment and will not allow a lender to take a profit from a fraudulent borrower.
Peter Gibson LJ said: ‘I remain wholly . .
CitedTinsley v Milligan HL 28-Jun-1993
Two women parties used funds generated by a joint business venture to buy a house in which they lived together. It was vested in the sole name of the plaintiff but on the understanding that they were joint beneficial owners. The purpose of the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Registered Land, Contract

Updated: 28 November 2021; Ref: scu.147407

William Gardner Paton, Sharon Paton v Adrian Todd (Alteration and Rectification of The Register : Mistake): LRA 11 May 2012

LRA Alteration of register- rectification- whether applicants have paper title to disputed strip- applicants not having paper title but respondent not showing pre-registration title to the disputed land- whether register should be rectified

[2012] EWLandRA 2010 – 0205
Bailii
Citing:
Remitted fromPaton and Another v Todd ChD 11-May-2012
The claimants sought leave to appeal against rejection of their request made to the Deputy Adjudicator for the rectification of the title to land they claimed title to land which was registered to the respondent neighbour.
Held: The claimant’s . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517439

Ghulam Ghaus v Gateway Homes U K Ltd, Clydesdale Bank Plc (Alteration and Rectification of The Register : Forgery and Fraud): LRA 12 Dec 2011

LRA Application for alteration of the register by former registered proprietor by his reinstatement as proprietor and removal of a charge, based on a forged transfer to the First Respondent. Found that the Applicant’s signature had been forged so that there was a correction of a mistake, and the alteration amounted to rectification. The First Respondent was not in physical possession at the date of the application, and there were no exceptional circumstances that would justify refusing the alteration.

Mr Colin Green
[2011] EWLandRA 2010 – 1098
Bailii
England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517438

Peter Bezkorowajny v Keith Ernest John Dawson, Ruth Lorraine Dawson (Adverse Possession : Successive Squatters): LRA 31 Oct 2011

LRA Previous squatter held to have acquired possessory title to land. Current possessor in possession from before the death in 2003 of the previous squatter, initially on his behalf. Current possessor held to have been allowed to retain possession by the personal representative of previous squatter, with the intention that he should take it over from him, but no vesting assent to the land was executed. Paper title owner’s title held to have been extinguished as against the current possessor whether or not the current possessor was to be treated as a successor in title of the previous squatter.

Michael Mark
[2011] EWLandRA 2011 – 0521
Bailii

Registered Land

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517437

The Chief Land Registrar v Silkstone, Silkstone, and Tatnall: LRA 14 Jul 2011

LRA (Practice and Procedure : Status of Parties) Respondents claiming right of way over Applicant’s land seeking to withdraw from proceedings immediately prior to hearing preserving the right to bring further proceedings alleging the right of way in the future. Effect of reference by the Chief Land Registrar on the power of a party to withdraw an application or objection without a decision being given on the merits. Exercise of discretion of Adjudicator to permit such a withdrawal.

[2011] EWLandRA 2008 – 0823
Bailii
England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517434

Davies v John Wood Property Plc: LRA 16 Feb 2010

LRA Application for adverse possession made under Schedule 6 but determined also on the basis that the Applicant had acquired a possessory title prior to the coming into force of the Land Registration Act 2002 and prior to the first registration of any title to the land. On facts, the Respondent is found to be unable to rely on paragraph 2(b) of Schedule 3 to the Land Registration Act 2002. Quaere how section 29 of the Land Registration Act 2002 and Schedule 3 to that Act ought to be construed and given effect to insofar as they purport to remove previously acquired property rights. The existence of a public right of way to a telephone kiosk on the land does not preclude the acquisition of a possessory title to the land subject to that right of way (R (on the application of Smith) v Land Registry (Peterborough Office), [2009] EWHC 328 (Admin) distinguished; Haigh v West, [1893] 2QB 19 applied).

Michael Mark DA
[2010] EWLandRA 2008 – 0528
Bailii

Registered Land

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517412

Laughton, Laughton v Naylor, Hawkins (Easements and Profits A Prendre : Reservation, Express): LRA 26 Mar 2010

LRA Unregistered legal easement created 2000 – s70(1)(a) LRA 1925 -s27(1)(2)(d), s29(1)(2)(a)(ii), paragraph 3 Schedule 3, paragraphs 9 and 10 Schedule 12 LRA 2002, application for summary judgment under Rule 32A Adjudicator to HM Land Registry (Practice and Procedure) Rules 2003 (as amended)

Sara Hargreaves DA
[2010] EWLandRA 2009 – 0239
Bailii

Registered Land

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517414

Milsum, Milsum v Gorman, Gorman: LRA 15 Feb 2011

LRA Easements and Profits A Prendre : Prescription, Requirements and Acquisition – right of way – prescription – servient land within dominant owner’s filed plan boundaries – whether prescription possible – effect of general boundaries rule – alleged consent

Owen Rhys
[2011] EWLandRA 2010 – 0361
Bailii
England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517428

Stewart v Lancashire Mortgage Corporation Ltd: LRA 19 Aug 2010

LRA Alteration and Rectification of The Register : Discretion of The Registrar and of The Adjudicator – alteration of the register – fraud – ‘correcting a mistake’ – fraudulent transfer and then charge – Schedule 4 paragraph 5(1)(a) of the Land Registration Act 2002-whether the decision in Barclays Bank v Guy is to be preferred over that in Ajibade v Bank of Scotland
Whether there are ‘exceptional circumstances’ within paragraph 6(3) to Schedule 4.

[2010] EWLandRA 2009 – 1556
Bailii

Registered Land

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517423

Khan, Shah, Ali, Ashraf v Khan, Mohammed, Khalil, Hanif: LRA 27 Jan 2011

LRA Practice and Procedure : Preliminary Issues – Applications to alter the proprietorship register – dispute as to the properly appointed trustees of a charity – one party directed to commence court proceedings under section 110(1) of the Land Registration Act 2002 – proceedings struck out for failure to obtain consent of the Charity Commission – whether consent of the Charity Commission required to proceed with the reference to the adjudicator – what directions should be given following the striking out of the court proceedings.

Simon Brilliant
[2011] EWLandRA 2008 – 0841
Bailii

Registered Land

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517426

Surrey County Council v Burt: LRA 16 Sep 2010

LRA Charges and Charging Orders : Charges Imposed Pursuant To Statute – A local authority which has provided accommodation under section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948, following the refusal of the Primary Care Trust to provide care and accommodation, and has properly declared a charge over the property of the person for whom accommodation has been provided is entitled to have that charge registered at the Land Registry notwithstanding that there is an outstanding appeal against the decision of the Primary Care Trust which, if successful, could result in the sums in question being reimbursed to the local authority by that Trust.

Michael Mark
[2010] EWLandRA 2005 – 1677
Bailii

Registered Land

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517424

Steven John Baxter v Thomas Francis Mannion (Alteration and Rectification of The Register : Correcting A Mistake): LRA 22 Feb 2011

LRA Schedule 6 to Land Registration Act 2002 – Mr Baxter registered with possessory title – whether register can altered under Schedule 4 – Chief Land Registrar ordered to alter register – Right of Way – whether squatter can acquire prescriptive right of way – Chief Land Registrar ordered to cancel application

[2011] EWLandRA 2008 – 0338
Bailii
England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517431

Palace Gate Worldwide Ltd v Palacegate Agencies Ltd, Oddbins Limited: LRA 31 Dec 2010

LRA Rectification or Setting Aside of Documents : Scope of Jurisdiction – Rectification of a document relating to registered land – sale of a commercial property to an offshore company – property registered under two separate titles – transfer only referring to one of the titles – whether transferee coming to equity with clean hands – issue of jurisdiction of adjudicator on rectifying a document to direct an alteration of the register.

[2010] EWLandRA 2009 – 0007
Bailii
England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517425

Hosking v Harding: LRA 30 Jul 2010

LRA Alteration and rectification of the register : Alteration affecting the title of land in the possession of a registered proprietor – Alteration of the register – construction of conveyance – rectification- whether proprietor in possession

[2010] EWLandRA 2009 – 0844
Bailii
England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517422

Mohammed Iqbal v Mohammed Usman Najeeb, Gmac-Rfc Ltd, Webb Resolution Ltd (Deeds : Powers of Attorney): LRA 17 Feb 2011

LRA Validity of power of attorney when executed while the donor has severe mental problems. Revocation of power. Purported exercise of power by donee to transfer the property to his own son. Effect of delay by Applicant to protect his position after becoming aware of what had happened.

[2011] EWLandRA 2009 – 1235
Bailii

Registered Land

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517430

The Chief Land Registrar v Franks, Franks, Bedward, Bedward: LRA 7 Jul 2011

LRA (Practice and Procedure : Appeals) Effect of Adjudicator’s order being set aside on appeal – whether a cancelled application can be restored to the register with its original priority date if appeal successful – third party interests. – (1) This reference is to the Court of Appeal decision on appeal from, and upholding, the High Court decision at: Franks and Anor v Bedward and Anor [2010] EWHC 1650 (Ch) (13 July 2010).
(2) That High Court decision was itself an appeal from the first instance decision of the Adjudicator that the Applicants’ application be cancelled as sanction for non-compliance with directions – .

[2011] EWLandRA 2005 – 1122
Bailii
England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517433

Kent County Council v Fremlin: LRA 14 Jan 2011

Charges and Charging Orders : Charges Imposed Pursuant To Statute – Where an objection is made to the Chief Land Registrar under section73 of the Land Registration Act 2002 by somebody who would not be an appropriate party in respect of the dispute if there were court proceedings, the Adjudicator has a discretion how to proceed taking into account the overriding objective set out in rule 3 of the Adjudicator to Her Majesty’s Land Registry (Practice and Procedure) Rules 2003. In a clear case that may involve directing the Chief Land Registrar to give effect to or to cancel the referred application. In other cases it may involve the substitution or addition of an appropriate Respondent. It is not appropriate to conduct lengthy judicial proceedings between A and B, when the issues raised are in fact only between A and C, and a decision between A and B will not bind either A or C as against the other of them.
In the present case, even on the basis that there is an arguable case as regards the amount of, and validity of an assessment made by the Applicant under section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948, this does not invalidate the charge declared by the Applicant under section 22 of the Health and Social Services and Social Security Act 1983 as a result of that party’s failure to pay any sum assessed as due under section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948. Accordingly, it is not appropriate to add the person whose land is the subject of the charge as a Respondent, in the absence of any attempt by her to challenge the charge.
Given the age and state of health of that person, and the problems that would be caused by joining her, together with other matters referred to in the decision, on the arguments to date she should not be joined even if there was a serious issue to be tried as to the validity of the charge, as a decision that it should be registered will not prevent a subsequent challenge to it by her personal representatives, and there is no suggestion that there will be any need to deal with the property in the meantime.

[2011] EWLandRA 2010 – 0756
Bailii

Registered Land

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517427

Osborne, Osborne v Lawton, Noyes, Sandford-Fawcett ): LRA 8 Mar 2011

LRA Adverse possession under paragraph 5(4) of Schedule 6 to the Land Registration Act 2002. Disputed land fenced in as part of the garden of the house being bought by the Applicants. Reasonableness of Applicants’ belief that the disputed land was part of the property which they bought.

[2011] EWLandRA 2010 – 1066
Bailii
Land Registration Act 2002
England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517432

Oakfinch Ltd v Hall and 6 Others: LRA 18 Dec 2009

LRA Practice and Procedure : Statements of Case – Requirements for reservation of a right of way of necessity. Extent of any such right. Relevance of available access by water. Need for an Applicant to establish its case on the basis of the facts pleaded by it, even in the absence of any Statement of Case by a Respondent before an order can be made in favour of the Applicant.

[2009] EWLandRA 2009 – 0422
Bailii

Registered Land

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517410

Norfolk Naturalists Trust v Lumley, Ellison (0940): LRA 23 Sep 2011

LRA (Rivers, Waterways and Foreshore : Accretion and Diluvion) Accretion and diluvion – effect of change in Mean High Water Mark – principles of construction of pre-registration deeds – purported grantor of land without a title subsequently acquiring title to the same land – estoppel perfecting grantor’s title – effect on subsequent purchaser

[2011] EWLandRA 2010 – 0940
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
See AlsoNorfolk Naturalists Trust v Lumley, Ellison (0939) LRA 23-Sep-2011
LRA (Rivers, Waterways and Foreshore) Accretion and diluvion – effect of change in Mean High Water Mark – principles of construction of pre-registration deeds – purported grantor of land without a title . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517435

Jayasinghe v Liyanage: LRA 18 Feb 2010

Practice and Procedure : Scope of Jurisdiction – Dispute as to ownership of property on trusts

[2010] EWLandRA 2008 – 0632
Bailii
Cited by:
At LRAJayasinghe v Liyanage ChD 18-Feb-2010
The claimant appealed against cancellation of his application for a restriction against the defendant’s registered title. The adjudicator had found that the claimant’s assertion of an interest in the land was a fiction.
Held: The appeal . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517411

Dykes v Cumbria County Council, Hewitt (Highways and Public Rights of Way : Estoppel): LRA 26 Mar 2010

LRA Application to amend the general boundary of the Applicant’s land fails for lack of evidence as to where that boundary should be. Grass verges to road found to be part of public highway maintainable at the public expense. Highway Authority cannot be precluded by its conduct from asserting that the verges were so maintainable. Use of the verges by the public for parking without objection from the Highway Authority is not evidence that the verges are not so maintained or that the verges do not form part of the highway. Extent of right of public to park on the highway considered.

Michael Mark DA
[2010] EWLandRA 2007 – 1539
Bailii

Registered Land

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517415

Ijacic As Executor of The Estate of The Late Cetko Tripkovic v Game Developments Limted, Link Lending Ltd: LRA 16 Oct 2009

LRA Fraud, Forgery, Duress and Undue Influence : Effect On Registered Title – Rectification and alteration of the register – mortgage fraud – forged charge of the applicant’s house to secure loan advanced by the second respondent – loan not repaid and the house sold by the second respondent to the first respondent under a power of sale – application by the applicant to alter the register by removing the second respondent’s charge — application by the first respondent to be registered as the proprietor of the house – issue as to dates of and priority of the applications.

[2009] EWLandRA 2008 – 1083
Bailii
England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517404

National Westminster Bank Plc v Derek Anthony Taylor (Charges and Charging Orders : Other): LRA 27 Oct 2009

LRA A general consent by the proprietor for the time being of a registered charge to the creation of leases of flats in a building being converted into flats is not a consent to the future grant of a particular lease to a particular person for a particular premium and thus is not sufficient for the purposes of a restriction that no disposition of a registered estate is to be registered without a written consent signed by the proprietor for the time being of the charge

Michael Mark
[2009] EWLandRA 2008 – 0975
Bailii
Land Registration Act 2002
England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517405

Meldale Ltd v Ludgershall Parish Council: LRA 27 Sep 2007

LRA Easements and Profits A Prendre : Abandonment – Right of way acquired by prescription – doctrine of lost modern grant – whether acquired for all purposes or limited to agricultural purposes only – whether abandoned – Ludgershall Inclosure Act 1777 – Ludgershall Inclosure Award 1778 -Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, section 67(5) – Inclosure Act 1857, section 12 – Commons Act 1876, section 29
Cases referred to: Tehidy Minerals v. Norman [1971] 2 OB 528; Angus v. Dalton (1877) 3 Q.B.D. 85; (1878) 4 Q.B.D. 162; (1881) 6 App.Cas. 740; Gotobed v. Pridmore (1970) 115 SJ 78; Williams v. Isherwood (1983) 45 P. and C.R. 235

[2007] EWLandRA 2006 – 1632
Bailii
England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517393

Jane Hamilton Holland v John Stephen Bate: LRA 20 Nov 2006

Boundary Dispute : Ad Medium Filum – Private road – formerly part of an estate which had been split up – claim by registered proprietor of land on both sides of part of the road to ownership of that part – construction of earlier conveyances – ad medium filum presumption – adverse possession – Was that part of the road subject to a right of way?

[2006] EWLandRA 2005 – 1309
Bailii
England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517390

Ajibade v Bank of Scotland Plc (Formerly Halifax Plc), Endeavour Personal Finance Ltd: LRA 8 Apr 2008

LRA Alteration and Rectification of The Register : Discretion of The Registrar and of The Adjudicator – Rectification of the register – Fraud – ‘Correcting a mistake’ – second charge – Schedule 4 Paragraph 5(1)(a) of the Land Registration Act 2002

[2008] EWLandRA 2006 – 0174
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
See AlsoAjibade v Bank of Scotland Plc (Formerly Halifax Plc), Endeavour Personal Finance Limited (Alteration and Rectification of The Register) LRA 8-Apr-2008
LRA Rectification of the register – Fraud – ‘Correcting a mistake’ – second charge – Schedule 4 Paragraph 5(1)(a) of the Land Registration Act 2002
Ms Ajibade was the registered proprietor of a leasehold . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517395

Lavaine Margaret Archer v Michael Eden, Halifax Plc: LRA 24 Jan 2007

LRA Deeds : Execution – ALTERATION OF THE REGISTER – FORGERY – validity of TR1 transfer deed challenged on 3 grounds – firstly, because deed not properly attested – secondly, because Applicant’s signature allegedly forged on TR1 – thirdly, on basis of misrepresentation making transaction voidable – held that TR1 void because Applicant’s signature had been forged and deed would have been invalidated in any event by absence of proper attestation, but that improper attestation not necessarily enough to defeat transaction – Chief Land Registrar ordered to give effect to the application – mortgagee’s application for recital relating to alleged subrogation refused.
Cases referred to:-
Shah v Shah [2002] QB 35
Biggar v London Borough of Havering [2001] EWCA Civ 411

[2007] EWLandRA 2005 – 1551
Bailii
England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517391

Crawley As Personal Representative of Verena Marcelina Crawley, Deceased v Gudipati, Standard Life Bank Ltd: LRA 12 Nov 2009

LRA Deeds : Subsequent Conduct/Extrinsic Evidence – Application to alter the register by removing proprietor and charge – applications to remove proprietor given effect to – issue as to validity of attestation of transfer – S 1(3) of the Law of Property Act – Shah v Shah [2002] QB 30 – undue influence – Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (No 2) [1998] 4 All ER 705. Position of the Bank considered and remitted for further argument – Barclays Bank v Guy [2008] 2 EGLR 74

[2009] EWLandRA 2009 – 0052
Bailii

Registered Land

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517408

Rossetti Ltd v Thresher Wines Acquisitions Ltd, First Quench Retailing Limited, Whitbread (UK) Limited: LRA 8 Sep 2009

LRA Alteration of the register to correct a mistake – Schedule 4 paragraph 5 of he Land Registration Act 1925 – mistake made on first registration in 1971 – omission of land from title – nature of right to seek correction of register – whether right passes to purchaser under section 63 of the Law of Property Act 1925 – whether exceptional reasons exist to refuse alteration – Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR – unjust enrichment – delay – abuse of process

Owen Rhys DA
[2009] EWLandRA 2008 – 0633
Bailii
England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517403

Allen v Higson: LRA 11 Apr 2008

LRA Easements and Profits A Prendre : Reservation, Implied – Owner of two adjoining properties sells one of them. Access from the side door of the retained property to the highway involved crossing a very small open area of the property sold. Implied reservation of right of way over that area established on the facts.

[2008] EWLandRA 2006 – 1622
Bailii
England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517396

Hedges v Mayland Parish Council: LRA 29 Jan 2009

LRA Adverse Possession : Landlord and Tenant – Possessory title claim. Strip of land enclosed as part of garden under licence. Effect on licence of change of owner of the garden and on sale of the strip of land. Owner of strip informs new licensee of transfer of title and tells licensee to pay licence fee to new owner, but new owner does not communicate with licensee and no fee is paid for 17 years. Claim that the old licence survived or that a new licence was to be implied is rejected. Authorities reviewed.

[2009] EWLandRA 2008 – 0089
Bailii
England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517398

Polo Woods Foundation v Shelton-Agar, Shelton-Agar: LRA 17 Jun 2009

LRA Easements and Profits A Prendre : Prescription, Requirements and Acquisition – Application to register benefit of profit a prendre – grazing for ponies – whether prescriptive right established – whether right accommodates dominant tenement – Chief Land Registrar ordered to cancel application

[2009] EWLandRA 2007 – 0175
Bailii
England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517401

The Republic of Croatia v The Republic of Serbia: LRA 2 Jul 2009

LRA Beneficial Interests, Trusts and Restrictions : Restrictions Where No Beneficial Interest
Dismemberment of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; entry of restrictions; lex situs; private domestic law of England and Wales; occupation of property by a member of the Serbian diplomatic mission; principle of justiciability; ‘sufficient interest’; ‘right or claim’; Agreement on Succession Issues 2001 2262 (United Nations Treaty Series 253), Articles 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8, Annex B, Articles 2,3,4 and 5; United Kingdom Material on International Law (1996) 67 BYIL 708 – 709; Law Com No 254 ‘Land Registration for the 21st Century – a Consultative Document’ para. 6,59; Law Com No 271 ‘Land Registration for the Twenty-First Century – A Conveyancing Revolution’, Stationery Office July 2001, para. 6.49; State Immunity Act 1978 s.1, s.6(1), s.6(3), s.12(1), s.12(3), s.16(1)(b); Land Registration Act 2002, s.42, s.43, s.73(7); Land Registration Rules 2003 Rule 93.
Cases referred to: AY Bank Limited (in Liquidation) v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, The Republic of Croatia, The Republic of Macedonia, The Republic of Slovenia, The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (now Serbia and Montenegro), Embassy of Serbia and Montenegro, The National Bank of Serbia [2006] EWHC 830 (Ch); J H Watson (Mincing Lane Ltd) v. the Department of Trade and Industry [1989] Ch 72; [1990] 2 AC 418; Cook v Sprigg [1899] AC 572; Secretary of State in Council v. Kamachee Boye Sahaba (1859) 13 Mo. PCC, 2,; Buttes Gas v. Hammer [1982] AC888; Kuwait Airways Corpn v Iraqi Airways Co (Nos 4 and 5) [2002]2 AC 1101; R v Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, ex parte Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament [2002] EWHC 2777.

[2009] EWLandRA 2008 – 0076
Bailii
England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517402

Port of London Authority v David Frank Devere and 7 Others – 0755: LRA 27 Feb 2013

LRA Rivers, Waterways and Foreshore : Construction of Relevant Legislation – Trial of a preliminary issue as to whether the Applicant can establish documentary title to part of the bed and foreshore of the River Thames; the ‘ad medium filum’ rule; true construction of the words ‘in front of or immediately adjacent to’

[2013] EWLandRA 2011 – 0755
Bailii
Port of London Act 1908 1 7, Port of London Act 1912, Port of London Act 1968 212 Sch 11, Thames Conservancy Act 1857 50 51, Thames Conservancy Act 1894 58 59, Port of London (Consolidation) Act 1920 7, Crown Lands Act 1702 5, Crown Lands Act 1853 5, Crown Lands Act 1829 8, Law of Property Act 1925 62(3), Poor Law Amendments Act 1868 27
England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517387

DeVere, Regina (on The Application of) v Land Registry: Admn 21 Oct 2013

Renewed applications for permission to apply for judicial review for separate claims which were heard together since they are closely connected and are concerned with two decisions of the Chief to register the title of two adjacent and separate parcels of land beneath and adjacent to the Grand Union Canal at Brentford in London. The relevant stretch of the canal runs into the River Thames and has the River Brent running within or close by it.
Held: Both of Mr DeVere’s applications were both an abuse of process and totally without merit.

Anthony Thornton QC HHJ
[2013] EWHC 2477 (Admin)
Bailii

Registered Land

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.516966

U K Housing Alliance (North West) Ltd v Bowyer and Others (Contracts and Options : Contracts for Sale): LRA 18 Mar 2013

LRA The Applicant, now in administration, was in business in 2007 to 2008 buying residential properties from owners in occupation for full market value, payable as to 70 per cent on completion and as to the 30 per cent balance, subject to conditions, at the expiry of ten years. At the same time it entered into assured shorthold tenancies of 10 years with the vendors at a rack rent with the vendors having the right to a further tenancy at the end of the 10 years. The vendors sought to protect their rights in respect of the 30 per cent balance by registering a notice against the freehold title at the Land Registry. The Administrators of the Applicant sought to have the notices cancelled.
Held: 1 Where a vendor is to be paid part of the purchase price on completion and the balance at a later date no unpaid vendor’s lien arises in the absence of specific provision for one: Winter v Lord Anson, (1823) 1 Sim and St. 434; Clarke v Royle, (1830) 3 Sim.499; Buckland v Pocknell, (1843) 13 Sim.406; Earl of Jersey v Briton Floating Dock Co., (1869) LR 7 Eq 409; Re Albert Life Insurance Co., (1870) LR Eq 164; Re Brentwood Brick and Coal Co., (1876) LR 4 Ch D 562; Capital Finance v Stokes, [1969] 1 Ch 262.
2 Even where an unpaid vendor’s lien would otherwise arise by implication, it can be excluded by express provision in the sale contract: Qayoumi v Oakhouse Property Holdings plc, [2003] 1 BCLC 352.
3 The provisions in the contracts in the present test cases which provide that there is to be no unpaid vendor’s liens do not fall foul of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 199: UK Housing Alliance v Francis, [2010] EWCA Civ 117; Director General of Fair Trading v First National Bank plc, [2001] 1 AC 481; Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National plc, [2010] 1 AC 696.
4 No facts have been established in any of the three test cases dealt with in this decision which could give rise to any constructive trust or estoppel which could have arisen either prior to or at the time that the Applicant went into administration or as a result of the administration.
5 In any event, it is not possible to have a remedial constructive trust or equity by way of estoppel which arises in the course of the administration of a company: Re Polly Peck Internations plc (in administration) (No.2), [1998] 3 All ER 812.
6 There is no right of set off of rent or other payments due to the Applicant under tenancy agreements granted to the vendors at the time of the sales against the outstanding balance of the purchase price except insofar as such right may arise in the course of the administration or liquidation of the Applicant. In particular there is no right of set off against a third party to whom the property has been sold on by the Applicant: Edlington Properties Limited v Fenner and Co. Limited, [2006] 3 All ER 1200.
7 The contingent right to receive the balance of the purchase price at the end of 10 years does not affect a registered estate or charge within the meaning of section 32 of the Land Registration Act 2002.
8 Accordingly no notice in respect of that right can be registered at the Land Registry to protect the right and the notices so registered must be vacated.

[2013] EWLandRA 2011 – 0604
Bailii
England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.516922

Hussain v Abdus Salam (Practice and Procedure : Scope of Jurisdiction): LRA 18 Mar 2013

LRA Application for registration of transfer from the names of the parties into the sole name of the Respondent found to be based on a document concocted to deceive creditors of the Respondent and is to be cancelled. Direction given for notice of a charging order obtained by one of those creditors to be entered on the register, despite the application of that creditor having previously been cancelled as a result of a decision of the Adjudicator based on that fraudulent document, the Adjudicator then being in ignorance of the fraud

[2013] EWLandRA 2011 – 0136
Bailii
England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.516921

Pearson v Foster (Nee Worden) (Practice and Procedure : Decisions and Orders): LRA 17 May 2013

LRA Party raising fresh issues by way of subsequent objection; refusal of Land Registry to give effect to consent order; second referral by HM Land Registry to the Adjudicator to HM Land Registry; estoppel by record – cause of action estoppel – issue estoppel; abuse of process; Rule in Henderson v Henderson; Adjudicator to HM Land Registry (Practice and Procedure) Rules 2003 Rules 16(3), 42.

[2013] EWLandRA 2011 – 1003
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
See AlsoPearson v Foster (Nee Worden) (Practice and Procedure : Decisions and Orders) LRA 17-May-2013
LRA Registration of profit a prendre in gross of fishing rights; order made by the Adjudicator giving effect to a consent order made by the parties; Adjudicator to HM Land Registry (Practice and Procedure) Rules . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.516924

Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Lambeth v George Bigden and Others: CA 1 Dec 2000

A block of flats had been occupied over several years by a succession of squatters. The present occupiers appealed an order for possession, and the authority appealed refusal of possession for other flats. The occupiers asserted possessory title.
Held: The earlier occupiers had sought licences from the authority, and had submitted petitions. The letters and petitions constituted an acknowledgment of the authority’s title, and the claims for adverse possession failed.

Lord Justice Simon Brown Lord Justice Mummery And Lord Justice Latham
[2000] EWCA Civ 302, (2001) 33 HLR 43
Bailii
Land Registration Act 1925 75
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedEdgington v Clark 1963
All that is required to constitute an acknowledgement so as to defeat a claim under limitation, is that, as between himself and the paper title owner, the person in possession acknowledges that the paper title owner has the better title to the land. . .
CitedPowell v McFarlane ChD 1977
A squatter had occupied the land and defended a claim for possession. The court discussed the conditions necessary to establish an intention to possess land adversely to the paper owner.
Held: Slade J said: ‘In the absence of evidence to the . .
CitedBuckinghamshire County Council v Moran CA 13-Feb-1989
The parties’ respective properties were separated by a fence or hedge and the true owner had no access to the disputed land. In 1967 the Defendants’ predecessors in title began to maintain the land by mowing the grass and trimming the hedges and . .
CitedTimothy Ellis v London Borough of Lambeth CA 9-Jul-1999
A squatter claiming possession of land as against a local authority should not have his claim defeated because he had not completed a form which would lead to payment of community charge to the authority. His possession was not thereby made secret, . .
CitedJones v Bellgrove Properties Limited CA 1949
The court allowed the plaintiff to establish by evidence that his particular debt was included in the total sum acknowledged to be due to a number of creditors.
Lord Goddard CJ was satisfied that a lump sum in a balance sheet included the debt . .
CitedBrowne v Perry PC 14-Oct-1991
(Antigua and Barbuda) The parties disputed a claim for land by adverse possession.
Held: Any acknowledgement of a paper title must be in writing. Lord Templeman explained the rule against reliance upon oral acknowledgements in adverse . .

Cited by:
CitedAllen v Matthews CA 13-Mar-2007
The defendants appealed an order refusing title by adverse possession to registered land. They denied that the limitation period had been restarted by their solicitor’s letter acknowledging the title.
Held: The letter must be read as a whole. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land, Limitation

Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.147335

Half Moon Bay Limited v Crown Eagle Hotels Limited: PC 20 May 2002

Strips of land lay between the two hotels operated by the parties. Restrictive covenants had been entered into by the respondent’s predecessors in title. The claimant brought proceedings to enforce the restrictions on the use of the land. An earlier case had been compromised on condition that the covenants be entered on the registers. This had not happened, and the land had been sold on twice to the present owners.
Held: Questions of annexation only arose on a transfer of the property benefited. The burden of a covenant does not run with freehold land at common law. A negative covenant may be enforced against a successor in title in equity, but only for the benefit of land of the covenantee or his successor in title. An original covenantee, therefore, cannot enforce such a covenant against a successor in title of the covenantor unless he retains the ownership of land which is capable of enjoying the benefit of the covenant. Jamaica adopted a Torrens style for land registration. The registration of the covenants after the land had been transferred was ineffective, since they ceased to bind the land on transfer unless registered.

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Millett, Sir Murray Stuart-Smith, Sir Christopher Staughton
[2002] UKPC 24, (Appeal No 31 of 2000)
PC, PC, PC, Bailii
Restrictive Covenants (Discharge and Modification) Act 1960 (Jamaica)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedLondon County Council v Allen 1914
A landowner applied to the plaintiffs for their sanction to a new street scheme. It was given but subject to his covenant to keep certain land unbuilt upon. He gave the covenant. The plaintiffs themselves had no land in the area capable of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land, Land, Commonwealth

Updated: 15 November 2021; Ref: scu.171198

Norwich and Peterborough Building Society v Steed: CA 5 Mar 1992

The land-owner had given his mother power of attorney over his home. Her signature was forged on a transfer, and the transferee executed a charge in favour of the appellant. Transfer and charge were registered. A first line of cases restored the defendant to the title, but the original transfer had been found voidable, and the charge left in effect.

Purchas, Butler-Sloss, Scott LJJ
[1992] EWCA Civ 5, [1993] Ch 116
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoArgyle Building Society v Hammond CA 1984
The registered freehold proprietor (S) of a property lived abroad, his mother having power of attorney. His sister and her husband, Mr and Mrs Hammond, had the register altered to show themselves as the freehold proprietors. The primary case was . .

Cited by:
CitedGold Harp Properties Ltd v Macleod and Others CA 29-Jul-2014
The company appealed against an order re-instating to the register leases which the company said it had forfeited for non-payment of rent. After the forfeiture, the landlord had granted new leases. It appealed saying that exceptional circumstances . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land, Trusts

Updated: 14 November 2021; Ref: scu.262622

Roberts and Others v Keegan: LRA 1 Oct 2014

roberts_keeganLRA201410

LRA Rentcharges : Nature and Extent : Rectification or Setting Aside of Documents : Scope of Jurisdiction – A lease created by the owner of a rentcharge pursuant to section 121 of the Law of Property Act 1925 is not registrable as a lease at HM Land Registry but is a mortgage which can only be protected on the register by a notice at least where the rentcharge is to end in 2037 under the Rentcharges Act 1977.
Costs recoverable under the rentcharge and lease do not include costs unreasonably incurred.

Judge Mark
[2014] EWLandRA 2012 – 1006
Bailii
Rentcharges Act 1977, Law of Property Act 1925 121

Registered Land

Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.541517

Celsteel Ltd v Alton House Holdings Ltd: ChD 1985

An equitable easement (a right of way), which was not protected by any entry on the register, was a right openly exercised and enjoyed as appurtenant, in this case to a garage, and it adversely affected registered land as an overriding interest. The court generally considered the availability of a remedy for infringement of a right of way.
Scott J said: ‘There emerge from the three cases I have cited two criteria relevant to the question whether a particular interference with a right of way is actionable. The interference will be actionable if it is substantial. And it will not be substantial if it does not interfere with the reasonable use of the right of way.’

Alston J, Scott J
[1985] 1 WLR 204
Land Registration Rules 1925 258, Land Registration Act 1925 70(1)(a)
England and Wales
Citing:
AppliedClifford v Hoare 1874
. .

Cited by:
CitedFerrishurst Ltd v Wallcite Ltd CA 30-Nov-1998
A person in actual occupation of registered land at time of transfer can enforce his rights against the transferee. A sub-underlessee in occupation of part could enforce an option to purchase against the freeholder acquiring intermediate registered . .
CitedBesley v John CA 29-Oct-2003
The defendant farmed land adjacent to land over which he had registered rights of common allowing him to graze sheep. The freeholders brought the action saying that the use was in excess of the rights. He counter-claimed that the extension of a golf . .
AppliedThatcher v Douglas and Another CA 19-Dec-1995
The Court rejected the contention that Celsteel was wrongly decided and that the Rule only applied to legal easements. The court followed Celsteel and applied it to equitable easements, holding them to be overriding interests by virtue of Rule 258. . .
CitedBhullar and Another v McArdle CA 10-Apr-2001
The defendant had registered a caution against the claimant’s land at the Land Registry. The claimant sought its removal and now appealed an order for rectification of the register against him. The parties had reached oral agreements as to the . .
CitedSweet and Another v Sommer and Another ChD 25-Jun-2004
Part of land had been sold off. By oversight no right of way had been taken in favour of the retained land. The dominant owner argued that by demolition of a building a means of access could be found and that therefore no right of way by necessity . .
MentionedSommer and Another v Sweet and Another CA 10-Mar-2005
The claimants had sought entry into theirs and their neighbour’s registered land titles of entries to acknowledge their rights of way. The neighbours appealed the finding of a right of way of necessity and by proprietary estoppel, and an order for . .
CitedMoncrieff and Another v Jamieson and others HL 17-Oct-2007
The parties disputed whether a right of way over a road included an implied right for the dominant owner to park on the servient tenement.
Held: The appeal failed. ‘The question is whether the ancillary right is necessary for the comfortable . .
CitedWest and Another v Sharp CA 12-May-1999
A deed granted a right of way 40 ft wide, but the land owner narrowed the area of land over which the easement was enjoyed. The easement dominant owner did not object for many years.
Held: The deed was clear, and the original extent of the . .
CitedB and Q Plc v Liverpool and Lancashire Properties Ltd ChD 26-Jul-2000
The dominant owner wished to deal with delivery vehicles in a manner where they were left parked awaiting emptying. The servient owner (a lessee) wanted to construct buildings over a large part of the land. The servient owner objected.
Held: . .
CitedChaudhary v Yavuz CA 22-Nov-2011
The court was asked ‘whether and if so how an easement arising informally and not protected by any entry at the Land Registry can be effective against a purchaser of the land over which the easement would be exercised.’ The parties respectively . .
CitedEmmett v Sisson CA 3-Feb-2014
Appeal against judgment in boundary dispute involving a private driveway.
Held: The appeal failed. ‘The respondents are entitled to exercise the ‘relative luxury’ of the ample right to gain both vehicular and pedestrian access to their land . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land, Land

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.187687

Hansford v Dawson (Beneficial Interests, Trusts and Restrictions : Matrimonial and Similar Disputes): LRA 17 Apr 2014

LRA Resulting or constructive trusts – respondent the sole registered proprietor of a property – parties in a relationship prior to respondent purchasing the property and becoming engaged to marry – parties live together in the property for over five years — applicant contributing to the costs of the household including the mortgage instalments – applicant carrying out works to improve the property – claim by applicant to have a beneficial interest in the property – issues as to whether the parties had a common intention as to ownership prior to the purchase of the property or as a result of the works being carried out – issue as to whether the parties agreed the applicant should have a beneficial interest in the house at the time of separation – effect of the engagement.

[2014] EWLandRA 2013 – 0388
Bailii
England and Wales

Registered Land, Trusts

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.546258

Swift 1st Ltd v Colin and Others: ChD 27 Jul 2011

The parties disputed the effects of charges over a property. A charge had not been registered, but merely noted on the registers. The defendants had purchased it from another chargee acting under a power of sale. The defendants had applied to be registered, but the Land Registry had declined to register them.
Held: The Land Registry should have registered the transfer.
Purle QC J said: ‘it seems to me that the claimant had full power of sale over the freehold, notwithstanding that its charge was not substantively registered and that it did not become the registered proprietor of any charge. The power of sale derives not from the niceties of the Land Registration legislation, but from the Law of Property Act 1925, and all that is required is a mortgage by deed. For section 88 to be engaged, all that is required, so far as relevant to the present case, is a charge by way of legal mortgage. The fact that this charge by way of legal mortgage was in the event unregistered, is, in my judgment, neither here nor there. It is still such a charge within the meaning of the Law of Property Act 1925, and section 88 in particular. In those circumstances it seems to me that the claimant is entitled to succeed on that ground alone.’

Purle QC J
[2011] EWHC 2410 (Ch)
Bailii
Law of Property Act 1925 85 88 101(6)
England and Wales
Citing:
Citedin Re White Rose Cottage ChD 1964
The court held that under a mortgage by deposit under seal, a true equitable mortgage – that the expression ‘the mortgaged property’ in section 101 meant the property over which the mortgage deed purported to extend and was not limited to an . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land, Land

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.444780

Link Lending Ltd v Bustard: CA 23 Apr 2010

The respondent had been detained in a secure mental unit for a year. In that time her home was charged to the appellant. She asserted that she had been a person in actual occupation. The chargee now appealed against a finding that the respondent had been such a person. She had been taken advantage of and persuaded to sell the house to a third party who had created the charge, but not paid her. Though she was not personally at the house, her personal effects were still there. Her condition meant that she would not have had capacity at the time she executed the transfer.
Held: The facts suggested points both ways, but ‘the courts are reluctant to lay down, or even suggest, a single legal test for determining whether a person is in actual occupation. The decisions on statutory construction identify the factors that have to be weighed by the judge on this issue. The degree of permanence and continuity of presence of the person concerned, the intentions and wishes of that person, the length of absence from the property and the reason for it and the nature of the property and personal circumstances of the person are among the relevant factors.’
The decision was one of fact and was to be disturbed only for clear error. No such error had been shown.

Mummery LJ, Jacob LJ, Sullivan LJ
[2010] EWCA Civ 424, [2010] 28 EG 86, [2010] 18 EG 98 (CS), [2010] 2 EGLR 55
Bailii
Land Registration Act 2002 29
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedStrand Securities Ltd v Caswell CA 2-Feb-1965
The leaving of furniture in a flat or having a key to the flat or making occasional use of it was not enough to constitute actual occupation. Where A permits B to occupy land on B’s own behalf by way of gratuitous licence, A’s capacity as licensor . .
CitedStockholm Finance Ltd v Garden Holdings Inc 26-Oct-1995
Robert Walker J considered how a court should decide on whether a person was in actual occupation of a house: ‘Whether a person’s intermittent presence at a house which is fully furnished, and ready for almost immediate use, should be seen as . .
AppliedThompson v Foy ChD 20-May-2009
Lewison J discussed the decision in Etridge: ‘In the light of the arguments before me, there are some additional observations I should make. First, although in Etridge Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead described the paradigm case of a relationship where . .
CitedRoyal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (No 2); Barclays Bank plc v Harris; Midland Bank plc v Wallace, etc HL 11-Oct-2001
Wives had charged the family homes to secure their husband’s business borrowings, and now resisted possession orders, claiming undue influence.
Held: Undue influence is an equitable protection created to undo the effect of excess influence of . .
CitedWilliams and Glyn’s Bank Ltd v Boland HL 19-Jun-1980
Wife in Occupation had Overriding Interest
The wife had made a substantial financial contribution to the purchase price of the house which was registered only in her husband’s name, and charged to the bank. The bank sought possession. The wife resisted saying that she had an overriding . .
CitedAbbey National Building Society v Cann HL 29-Mar-1990
Registered land was bought with an advance from the plaintiff. The transfer and charge were registered one month later, but in the meantime, the buyer’s parents moved in. When the buyer defaulted, his mother resisted possession proceedings, saying . .
CitedHoggett v Hoggett CA 1980
The court considered whether there had been an effective surrender of a property at law.
Held: Where a person claims to have been in occupation of land at law, but was not physically present, it was necessary to show that his occupation was . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.408600

Bean and Another v Katz and Another: UTTC 6 Apr 2016

An appeal from a decision made in the Land Registration Division of the First-tier Tribunal on the Appellants’ application for a determined boundary under section 60 of the Land Registration Act 2002.
Held: If the FTT regards the boundary sought as partly correct, it may direct the registrar to give effect to it to that extent, but to reject it insofar as it is incorrect; and it may give a direction about the entry to be made with regard to that part of the boundary where the applicant’s plan was found wanting.

[2016] UKUT 168 (TCC)
Bailii
Land Registration Act 2002 60
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedWitt v Woodhead UTLC 18-Nov-2020
No determined Boundary – Court Findings Enough
Land Registration – Boundary Disputes – Construction of Conveyance – Straight Line Boundary – usefulness of computer-generated lines – party wall – fence posts
Held: ‘It should be borne in mind that a carefully-drawn conveyance plan showing a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.562434

Cantelmi and Another v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 26 Jan 2016

Appeal from a decision of Judge Ann McAllister, sitting as a Judge of the Property Chamber

[2016] UKUT 35 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedCantelmi, Nakli v Hart LRA 13-Nov-2014
Application for a defined boundary . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.562414

Housden and Another Housden v Conservators of Wimbledon and Putney Commons (Easements): LRA 21 Aug 2006

LRA EASEMENT – right of way – prescription – Wimbledon and Putney Commons Act 1871 ss. 8 and 35 – Prescription Act 1832, ss. 2 and 3 – true construction of the word ‘dispose’ – definition of ‘the commons’ – whether the Respondents are capable grantors – doctrine of Lost Modern Grant.

[2006] EWLandRA 2005 – 0236
Bailii
Prescription Act 1832 8 35
Cited by:
See AlsoHousden and Another v The Conservators of Wimbledon and Putney Commons CA 18-Mar-2008
The claimants sought to register a right of way over the common by virtue of use over forty years. The defendants denied that they were able to grant an easement inder the 1871 Act, and that therefore no claim could be laid under prescription.
Registered Land

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.429547

Cook v The Mortgage Business Plc: CA 24 Jan 2012

The land owners sought relief from possession orders made under mortgages given in equity release schemes: ‘If the purchaser raises all or part of the purchase price on mortgage, and then defaults, the issue arises whether the mortgagee’s right to possession has priority over, or is subject to, any entitlement of the vendor to continue in occupation where the right asserted by the vendor is prohibited by the mortgage.’
Held: The appeals were dismissed. It was not possible to distinguish the Cann case. As a matter of policy, it would not be appropriate to place on the respondent lenders the risk of carelessness or fraud in the carrying out of the promises or representations made to the appellant vendors because the lenders could have, and should have, made direct enquiries of the vendors.
Prior to the registration of the purchaser as the proprietor, the purchaser’s interest in the property can subsist only in equity. As a matter of basic land law, an equitable owner of land cannot grant a legal interest. A person cannot grant a greater interest than he or she possesses. No doubt, for good policy reasons, the legislature could provide in sufficiently clear and precise language for a different position. It had not done so.

Lord Neuberger MR, Rix, Etherton LJJ
[2012] EWCA Civ 17, [2012] HLR 21, [2012] 1 WLR 1521, [2012] 1 PandCR 18, [2012] 5 EG 82, [2012] 1 EGLR 89, [2012] 15 EG 96
Bailii
Law of Property Act 1925 63, Land Registration Act 2002 29, Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedAbbey National Building Society v Cann HL 29-Mar-1990
Registered land was bought with an advance from the plaintiff. The transfer and charge were registered one month later, but in the meantime, the buyer’s parents moved in. When the buyer defaulted, his mother resisted possession proceedings, saying . .
CitedShaw v Foster HL 14-Mar-1872
As regards the trusteeship which arises for a vendor of land after exchange of contracts: ‘there cannot be any doubt of the relation subsisting in the eye of a Court of Equity between the vendor and the purchaser. The vendor was a trustee of the . .
CitedCoventry Permanent Economic Building Society v Jones ChD 1951
The contracting purchaser of a property agreed, prior to completion, to let the ground floor of the property to two tenants. She subsequently borrowed a sum of money from the plaintiffs to enable her to complete the purchase. On completion, she . .
CitedSargaison v Roberts ChD 1969
The court was asked as to a taxpayer’s entitlement to tax allowances under section 314 of the 1952 Act, and whether, for the purposes of the legislation, a transfer by the taxpayer into trust of a farm and the simultaneous grant by the trustees to . .
CitedWilliams and Glyn’s Bank Ltd v Boland HL 19-Jun-1980
Wife in Occupation had Overriding Interest
The wife had made a substantial financial contribution to the purchase price of the house which was registered only in her husband’s name, and charged to the bank. The bank sought possession. The wife resisted saying that she had an overriding . .
CitedCity of London Building Society v Flegg And Another HL 14-May-1987
A couple bought a property and registered it in their own names with substantial financial assistance from the parents of one of them. The parents occupied the house with them. Without telling the parents, the owners borrowed again, executing . .
CitedAbbey National Building Society v Cann HL 29-Mar-1990
Registered land was bought with an advance from the plaintiff. The transfer and charge were registered one month later, but in the meantime, the buyer’s parents moved in. When the buyer defaulted, his mother resisted possession proceedings, saying . .
CitedAIB Group (UK) Plc v Mark Redler and Co (A Firm) ChD 23-Jan-2012
The claimant bank sought damages from the defendant solicitors, saying that they had paid on mortgage advance moneys but failed to deliver as promised and required, a first mortgage over the property purchased. The solicitors had failed to discharge . .
CitedNationwide Anglia Building Society v Ahmed CA 1995
The First Defendant agreed to purchase a business from the Second Defendant for andpound;160,000. andpound;80,000 was raised by way of a secured loan from the plaintiff and was paid to the Second Defendant. The balance of andpound;80,000 was left . .
CitedTarget Holdings Ltd v Redferns (A Firm) and Another HL 21-Jul-1995
The defendant solicitors had acted for a purchaser, Crowngate, which had agreed to buy a property from a company called Mirage for andpound;775,000. Crowngate had arranged however that the property would first be passed through a chain of two . .
CitedBarclays Bank Plc v Estates and Commercial Ltd and Another CA 20-Mar-1996
An unpaid vendor’s lien was not subordinated to the plaintiff’s charge without clear consent.
Millett LJ said: ‘As soon as a binding contract for sale of land is entered into the vendor has a lien on the property for the purchase money and a . .
CitedMothew (T/a Stapley and Co) v Bristol and West Building Society CA 24-Jul-1996
The solicitor, acting in a land purchase transaction for his lay client and the plaintiff, had unwittingly misled the claimant by telling the claimant that the purchasers were providing the balance of the purchase price themselves without recourse . .
CitedJerome v Kelly (Her Majesty’s Inspector of Taxes) HL 13-May-2004
In 1987, trustees holding land for various beneficiaries in undivided shares entered into a contract to sell it to a purchaser. In 1989 Mr and Mrs Jerome, who were absolutely entitled to interests in the land, assigned part of their beneficial . .
CitedHardy and others v Fowle and Another ChD 26-Oct-2007
Mortgagees claimed possession of the land. The occupiers claimed a right of occupation under a lease. The mortgagees argued that the lease had been surrendered.
Held: The lease had been surrendered by a deed. The defects in notice alleged did . .
CitedLloyds TSB Bank Plc v Markandan and Uddin (A Firm) ChD 14-Oct-2010
The claimant sought damages saying that the defendant firm of solicitors had failed to deal properly with a conveyance having paid across the mortgage funds to a non-existent firm of solicitors and without obtaining the appropriate documents at all. . .
CitedRedstone v Welch and Jackson 2009
. .
CitedEdward Wong Finance Co Ltd v Johnson Stokes and Master PC 1984
(Hong Kong) The defendant’s solicitors completed a mortgage in ‘Hong Kong style’ rather than in the old fashioned English style. Completion in Hong Kong style provides for money to be paid over against an undertaking by the solicitors for the . .
CitedAbigail v Lapin PC 19-Jun-1934
(Australia) Mr and Mrs Lapin, the registered proprietors of land, had given transfers by way of security to creditors who fraudulently mortgaged it. The majority in the High Court had held that the unregistered security of the subsequent lender did . .
CitedIn re Connolly Brothers Ltd (No. 2) CA 1912
A company had granted a debenture over all its assets, present and future, but wishing to acquire an additional property, it approached a third party who agreed to finance the purchase against a charge. It contracted to buy the property at pounds . .
CitedCoventry Permanent Economic Building Society v Jones ChD 1951
The contracting purchaser of a property agreed, prior to completion, to let the ground floor of the property to two tenants. She subsequently borrowed a sum of money from the plaintiffs to enable her to complete the purchase. On completion, she . .
CitedSecurity Trust Co v The Royal Bank of Canada PC 1-Dec-1975
(Bahamas) A company, Fisher agreed to buy land with part of the purchase price to be paid by a fixed date and the balance secured by a mortgage to the vendor. A conveyance and a mortgage were duly executed and held in escrow pending payment of the . .
CitedChurch of England Buidling Society v Piskor CA 1954
Weekly tenancies had been granted by the purchaser of the property, title to which was unregistered, before completion. The society now sought possession of the property. The tenants argued that although their tenancies were equitable, they were . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromScott v Southern Pacific Mortgages Ltd and Others SC 22-Oct-2014
The appellant challenged a sale and rent back transaction. He said that the proposed purchaser had misrepresented the transaction to them. The Court was asked s whether the home owners had interests whose priority was protected by virtue of section . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Registered Land

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.450464

Witt v Woodhead: UTLC 18 Nov 2020

No determined Boundary – Court Findings Enough

Land Registration – Boundary Disputes – Construction of Conveyance – Straight Line Boundary – usefulness of computer-generated lines – party wall – fence posts
Held: ‘It should be borne in mind that a carefully-drawn conveyance plan showing a straight boundary may not depict a perfectly straight line on the ground; a red line on a plan may be a metre wide on the ground because the conveyancers of the past did not have today’s computerised mapping tools; nor did the builders of the 1960s, with pegs and tape, have the use of today’s measuring instruments.’

Judge Elizabeth Cooke
[2020] UKUT 319 (LC)
Bailii
Land Registration Act 2002 60
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedPennock and Another v Hodgson CA 27-Jul-2010
In a boundary dispute, the judge had found a boundary, locating it by reference to physical features not mentioned in the unambigous conveyance.
Held: The judge had reiterated but not relied upon the statement as to the subjective views of the . .
CitedBean and Another v Katz and Another UTTC 6-Apr-2016
An appeal from a decision made in the Land Registration Division of the First-tier Tribunal on the Appellants’ application for a determined boundary under section 60 of the Land Registration Act 2002.
Held: If the FTT regards the boundary . .
CitedHawkes v Howe CA 29-Jul-2002
The parties were neighbours. One asserted that the other had trespassed in a building by 2.5 inches. The defendant appealed an award of damages. A garage had been built over the boundary by a previous occupier but by agreement. The new owner . .
CitedLanfear v Chandler CA 20-Nov-2013
Appeal in boundary dispute case.
Held: There is no presumption that T-marks indicate the ownership of the boundary feature . . .
CitedLowe and Another v William Davis Ltd UTTC 26-Jun-2018
FTT’s jurisdiction to locate boundary
Land Registration – Location of Boundary- Land registration – Land Registration Act 2002, section 60 – Land Registration Rules 2003, rules 118 – 120 – application to First-tier Tribunal for determination of exact line of boundary – First-tier . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.656354

Wheatley, Smith As Executors of Henry Thomas Cadbury-Brown v King: LRA 30 Nov 2011

LRA Estoppel – Exercise of options – whether defect waived – ‘The Kanchenjunga’ [1990] Lloyds Law Reports 391 – Peyman v Lanjani [1985] 1 Ch 457, HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd v AXA Corporate Solutions [2002] EWCA Civ 153, Forrest and Sons Ltd v CGU Insurance Plc [2006] Lloyds Rep 113, Persimmon Homes v Hall Aggregates [2009] EWCA, Thorner v Major [2009] 3 All ER 945.

[2011] EWLandRA 2011 – 0238, 2011/0238
Bailii
Land Registration Act 2002
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedMotor Oil Hellas (Corinth) Refineries SA v Shipping Corporation of India (The Kanchenjunga) HL 1990
A ship was caught in harbour when an air raid broke out. The master took the ship to sea where it suffered damage.
Held: The shipowners were protected by a war risks clause in the charterparty agreement. As to waiver by election, Lord Goff of . .
CitedHIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd v AXA Corporate Solutions CA 31-Jul-2002
The reinsured (HIH) claimed against its 80% quota share reinsurers (which include Axa) in respect of pecuniary loss indemnity insurance written by HIH to cover loss by the financiers of two slates of films. HIH had paid their insured over $31 . .
CitedForrest and Sons Ltd v CGU Insurance Plc 2006
The insurer had noted that an oven on the insured’s premises was a danger. The insured said that the over had been disconnected and was no longer in use. This was not in fact the case. A year later the insurer surveyed the premises. It noted the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.465875

Pilling Parish Council v Stephen Wells (Practice and Procedure): LRA 6 Mar 2008

LRA The council challenged the grant of a possessory title to the respondent. He, acting for English Nature had claimed ownership of a section of foreshore of special scientific interest. The respondent argued that the claimant had not asserted any contrary interst and should not be heard. The council appealed against acceptance of that argument saying that this was a public law matter and had standing accordingly.
Held: The matter was one of private law, and the Council had no standing to object. ‘The changes made by the Land Registration Act 2002 have been a move away from what was called registration of title to what is now sometimes called title by registration.’
‘Mr Wells’ original application to have himself registered as proprietor of a parcel of land raises questions of private law only. The registration of a person as proprietor of land is concerned with conferring upon him private law rights. The fact that those private law rights are recorded in a register which is open to the public does not appear to me to alter the fundamental nature of those rights.’
The schemes of land registration in England and Scotland are sufficiently similar for the court to apply the Wilson case in this. The effect of the closure of the title would be to remove a freehold estate which is currently vested in the registrant by virtue of the 2002 Act. That is undoubtedly a question of private rights.’

Lewison J
[2008] EWLandRA 2006 – 0084
Bailii
Land Registration Act 2002 11(7) 73
England and Wales
Citing:
PersuasiveWilson and Others v Keeper of the Registers of Scotland SCS 1999
(Inner House) An application was made objecting to the registration of a title to a foreshore. The title applicant objected that this was a matter of private law, and that they had no standing to object.
Held: To apply for the alteration of . .

Cited by:
CitedWalker and Another v Burton and Another CA 14-Oct-2013
The Burtons had purchased the former Hall of the village of Ireby, and been registered as proprietors of the Lordhsip of the Manor. The villagers had successfully challenged the registration. The Court now considered the circumstances in which the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.429588

Lowe and Another v William Davis Ltd: UTTC 26 Jun 2018

FTT’s jurisdiction to locate boundary

Land Registration – Location of Boundary- Land registration – Land Registration Act 2002, section 60 – Land Registration Rules 2003, rules 118 – 120 – application to First-tier Tribunal for determination of exact line of boundary – First-tier Tribunal holding that application plan inaccurate and directing Chief Land Registrar to cancel application – First-tier Tribunal making findings as to location of the boundary – appeal to Upper Tribunal – jurisdiction of First-tier Tribunal to make findings on the location of the boundary in such a case – whether First-tier Tribunal’s findings as to location of boundary correct – appeal as to costs order made by First-tier Tribunal
The fTT may direct the registrar to reject the application in whole or in part if it finds that the boundary sought is not the correct boundary, or to give effect to the application (in whole or in part) without regard to the objection; the FTT’s direction may include: ‘a condition that a specified entry be made on the register of any title affected’

[2018] UKUT 206 (TCC), [2018] WLR(D) 425, [2018] 2 P and CR 13, [2018] 4 WLR 113
Bailii, WLRD
Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 40(3)(a)
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedWitt v Woodhead UTLC 18-Nov-2020
No determined Boundary – Court Findings Enough
Land Registration – Boundary Disputes – Construction of Conveyance – Straight Line Boundary – usefulness of computer-generated lines – party wall – fence posts
Held: ‘It should be borne in mind that a carefully-drawn conveyance plan showing a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.628071

Swainland Builders Ltd v Freehold Properties Ltd: CA 2002

Swainland Builders Ltd owned the freehold of a block of flats. It had granted 99-year leases at ground rents of all the flats except numbers 11 and 18. It had intended to sell the block subject to the retention of flats 11 and 18 which it initially proposed to let on shorthold tenancies but with a view to granting long leases at premiums in the future.
In October 1998 Freehold Properties Ltd agreed to buy the block for 60,000 pounds. It correctly understood the aggregate ground rents of 4,875 pounds on the assumption that all 39 flats were let on the same long leasehold terms. By September 1999 the vendor’s solicitor had confirmed by letter to the purchaser’s solicitor that the vendor was not intending to sell flats 11 and 18 and in the interim the vendor was to be treated as any other tenant of the block.
Long leases of the two flats were never granted and the transfer of the freehold by the vendor failed to reserve any rights to the two flats for the benefit of the vendor. On becoming aware of that omission the vendor issued proceedings claiming that there had been a mistake which was common to the parties and contrary to their common intention.
At trial Neuberger J concluded that the intention of the parties seemed quite clear from the evidence. He ordered rectification of the transfer so as to provide for the grant to the vendor of leases in respect of the two flats.
Held: The court summarised the requirements for rectification for mutual mistake, namely: ‘The party seeking rectification must show that: (1) the parties had a common continuing intention, whether or not amounting to an agreement, in respect of a particular matter in the instrument to be rectified; (2) there was an outward expression of accord; (3) the intention continued at the time of the execution of the instrument sought to be rectified; (4) by mistake, the instrument did not reflect that common intention. The following points derive from the authorities: (1) the standard of proof required if the court is to order rectification is the ordinary standard of the balance of probabilities . . (2) While it must be shown what was the common intention, the exact form of words in which the common intention is to be expressed is immaterial if, in substance and in detail, the common intention can be ascertained . . (3) The fact that a party intends a particular form of words in the mistaken belief that it is achieving its intention does not prevent the court from giving effect to the true common intention . . ‘

Lord Justice Peter Gibson
[2002] EWCA Civ 560, [2002] 2 EGLR 71, [2002] 23 EG 123, [2002] 17 EG 154
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedJIS (1974) Ltd v MCP Investment Nominees I Ltd CA 9-Apr-2003
The parties agreed for a lease to be granted of a new building. Part had been intended to be excluded for shops, but permission was not obtained, the shops area was included and leased back. When the tenants sought to determine the lease, the . .
CitedOun v Ahmad ChD 19-Mar-2008
The parties agreed in writing for the sale of leasehold property to the claimant. One document had been signed, but later one said that it had not included an aportionment. Another document then set out the apportionment. When the defendant refused . .
CitedConnolly Ltd v Bellway Homes Ltd ChD 23-Apr-2007
connolly_bellwayChD2007
The claimant sought rectification of a contract for the sale of land, or damages in deceit. They said that it had been agreed that the price would be adjusted to reflect any change in values. The formula inserted made no great sense mathematically, . .
CitedDaventry District Council v Daventry and District Housing Ltd CA 13-Oct-2011
The appellant challenged refusal of rectification of its agreement with the defendant. They asserted either mutual or unilateral mistake. The parties had agreed for the transfer of housing stock and management staff to the respondents. The claimant . .
CitedLloyds TSB Bank Plc v Crowborough Properties Ltd and Others CA 12-Feb-2013
The court was asked whether Lloyds TSB Bank Plc was entitled to rectify the terms of a compromise embodied in the schedule to a Tomlin order. . .
CitedRadford and Another v Frade and Others QBD 8-Jul-2016
The court was asked as to the terms on which solicitors and Counsel were retained to act for the defendants. The appeals did not raise any issues concerning costs practice, and were by way of review of the Costs Judge’s rulings, and not by way of . .
CitedFSHC Group Holdings Ltd v Glas Trust Corporation Ltd CA 31-Jul-2019
Rectification – Chartbrook not followed
Opportunity for an appellate court to clarify the correct test to apply in deciding whether the written terms of a contract may be rectified because of a common mistake.
Held: The appeal failed. The judge was right to conclude that an . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Equity, Contract, Registered Land

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.184539

Phillips and Others v Vaughan: LRA 4 Mar 2016

LRA Application to close registered title by documentary title owners/ first registration of possessory title based on adverse possession/ Whether factual and mental elements of adverse possession established/ Whether the occupation was with consent/ Whether witness statements made by their apparent author/ whether a witness offered an inducement to give evidence/ Whether a further adjournment of proceedings to facilitate a third opportunity to obtain handwriting evidence should be grant

[2016] EWLandRA 2014 – 0497
Bailii
Limitation Act 1980 15 17, Land Registration Act 2002 11(7)

Registered Land, Limitation

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.564466

Ghai and Others v Maymask (228) Ltd: UTLC 26 Oct 2020

Land Registration – Alteration and Rectification – whether purchaser entitled to rely on transfer executed by director during receivership – whether receivers discharged before execution of transfer – section 26, Land Registration Act 2002 – appeal dismissed

[2020] UKUT 293 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.655167

J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v The United Kingdom: ECHR 30 Aug 2007

UK Advers Possession Law – Not Compliant

The claimant had said that the UK law which allowed it to lose land by virtue of twelve year’s occupation by a squatter, interfered with its right to ownership of property.
Held: The UK law on adverse possession did comply with the Convention. The limitation period of twelve years for actions for the recovery of land pursued a legitimate aim in the general interest. The contracting states enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation in implementing social and economic policies, and it was not unreasonable for a state to provide for the extinction of title where the requirements of adverse possession were satisfied.

[2007] ECHR 700, [2007] ECHR 705, Times 01-Oct-2007, 44302/02, [2007] All ER (D) 177, (2008) 46 EHRR 45
Bailii, Bailii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights, Land Registration Act 2002
Human Rights
Citing:
Appeal fromJ A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Nov-2005
The claimants had been the registered proprietors of land, they lost it through the adverse possession of former tenants holding over. They claimed that the law had dispossessed them of their lawful rights.
Held: The cumulative effect of the . .
CitedJ A Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Others v Graham and Another HL 4-Jul-2002
The claimants sought ownership by adverse possession of land. Once the paper owner had been found, they indicated a readiness to purchase their interest. The court had found that this letter contradicted an animus possidendi. The claimant had . .
AdmissibilityJ A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v The United Kingdom ECHR 8-Jun-2004
Admissibility . .

Cited by:
AppliedOfulue and Another v Bossert CA 29-Jan-2008
The claimants appealed an order finding that the defendant had acquired their land by adverse possession. They said that the defendant had asserted in defence to possession proceedings that they were tenants, and that this contradicted an intent to . .
CitedLancashire County Council v Buchanan Admn 7-Nov-2007
The defendant estate agent was prosecuted for misdescribing the ability of his client to convey good title to the land offered. The seller did not initially have a registered possessory title to part of the land.
Held: The agent’s appeal . .
CitedBaxter v Mannion ChD 18-Mar-2010
B appealed against an order for rectification against him of the land register returning ownership to M. B had obtained registration with possessory title, claiming to have kept horses on the field for many years in adverse possession of it. M had . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Registered Land

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.263548

Walker and Another v Burton and Another: CA 14 Oct 2013

The Burtons had purchased the former Hall of the village of Ireby, and been registered as proprietors of the Lordhsip of the Manor. The villagers had successfully challenged the registration. The Court now considered the circumstances in which the corrective power may be exercised in the case of the mistaken registration under the 2002 Act of 362 acres of moorland.

Mummery, Jackson, McCombe LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 1228, [2013] EWLandRA 2007 – 1124
Bailii, Bailii
Land Registration Act 2002
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedWalker and Others v Burton and Another ChD 19-Apr-2013
The parties had bitterly disputed the Lordship of the Manor of Ireby. The defendants had purchased the former Hall, and had been registered as proprietors of the Lordship. The claimants having succeeded before the Land Registry adjudicator, they now . .
CitedWilson and Others v Keeper of the Registers of Scotland SCS 1999
(Inner House) An application was made objecting to the registration of a title to a foreshore. The title applicant objected that this was a matter of private law, and that they had no standing to object.
Held: To apply for the alteration of . .
CitedHampshire County Council v Milburn HL 1991
The 1965 Act ‘was passed to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission so far as registration was concerned. The Act of 1965 did not confer any general public right of access over common land and did not set up the machinery for the . .
CitedCrown Estate Commissioners v Roberts and Another ChD 13-Jun-2008
The defendant claimed ownership as Lord Marcher of St Davids of historical rights in foreshores in Pembrokeshire. The claimants sought removal of his cautions against first registration.
Held: Lewison J explored the history of manorial . .
CitedCorpus Christi College Oxford v Gloucestershire County Council CA 1983
The court considered the result where the freehold of what had formerly been waste of the manor became severed from the lordship.
Held: It ceased to be part of the manor. Lord Denning MR described the historical basis of the ownership of land . .
CitedPilling Parish Council v Stephen Wells (Practice and Procedure) LRA 6-Mar-2008
LRA The council challenged the grant of a possessory title to the respondent. He, acting for English Nature had claimed ownership of a section of foreshore of special scientific interest. The respondent argued . .
CitedWells v Pilling Parish Council ChD 6-Mar-2008
The Council had sought rectification of the land registers granting possessory title to Mr Wells to land at the foreshore at Morecambe Bay, which he held on behalf of English Nature it being designated as a site of Special Scientific Interest. The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.516452

Gold Harp Properties Ltd v Macleod and Others: CA 29 Jul 2014

The company appealed against an order re-instating to the register leases which the company said it had forfeited for non-payment of rent. After the forfeiture, the landlord had granted new leases. It appealed saying that exceptional circumstances existed to justify the non-rectification, and that the judge had erred in giving the revived leases priority.
Held: The appeal failed. The Court (and the Registrar) had the power to remove from the Register a derivative interest created by a person who at the material time was, albeit as the result of a mistake, the registered proprietor, and in that sense – without prejudice to whether this is a relevant sense – to make a ‘retrospective’ order.
Underhill LJ said: ‘What paragraph 8 permits (for the future) is ‘changing the priority’ of an interest. What an interest having priority means is that the owner can exercise the rights which he enjoys by virtue of that interest to the exclusion of any inconsistent rights of the owner of the competing interest. The concept of priority thus bites at the moment that those rights are sought to be enjoyed. Once that is appreciated the effect of the words ‘for the future’ seems to me straightforward. They mean that the beneficiary of the change in priority – that is, the person whose interest has been restored to the Register – can exercise his rights as owner of that interest, to the exclusion of the rights of the owner of the competing interest, as from the moment that the order is made, but that he cannot be treated as having been entitled to do so up to that point.’

Richards, Sullivan, Underhill LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 1084, [2014] WLR(D) 345
Bailii, WLRD
Land Registration Act 2002 28 29
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedFreer v Unwins Ltd ChD 1976
The registered land comprised a shop subject to a restrictive covenant restricting sale of tobacco products and sweets. By mistake, the covenant was not noted in the Register. The (unregistered) leasehold of the premises was assigned to purchasers . .
CitedArgyle Building Society v Hammond CA 1984
The registered freehold proprietor (S) of a property lived abroad, his mother having power of attorney. His sister and her husband, Mr and Mrs Hammond, had the register altered to show themselves as the freehold proprietors. The primary case was . .
CitedEgan v Central Manchester and Manchester Children’s University Hospitals NHS Trust CA 15-Dec-2008
The claimant, a nurse employed by the defendant, appealed against the refusal of her claim for personal injury suffered operating a hoist whose wheels jammed when they hit a plinth in the floor. No risk assessment was in place.
Held: The judge . .
CitedNorwich and Peterborough Building Society v Steed CA 5-Mar-1992
The land-owner had given his mother power of attorney over his home. Her signature was forged on a transfer, and the transferee executed a charge in favour of the appellant. Transfer and charge were registered. A first line of cases restored the . .
CitedClark and Another v Chief Land Registrar and Another ChD 2-Dec-1992
The defendant had made a mistake resulting in an equitable chargee not being given proper opportunity to object to the registration of a further charge with priority. The chargee sought compensation from the defendant registrar.
Held: The . .
CitedClark and Another v Chief Land Registrar and Another; Chancery Plc v Ketteringham CA 5-May-1994
A caution gives a right to be notified of an application, but does not give any priority on registration. . .
CitedParkash v Irani Finance Ltd ChD 1970
A search by an intending chargee had not revealed the existence of a caution on the register which protected a charging order. When the chargee attempted to register the charge, the cautioner was informed. It objected to the registration.
CitedHayes v Nwajiaku ChD 10-Jun-1994
One of two joint proprietors of registered land forged the signature of the other and sold the property. The purchaser charged it to mortgagees who had no notice of the forgery.
Held: The original proprietor was entitled to have the Charges . .
CitedMalory Enterprises Ltd v Cheshire Homes (UK) Ltd and others CA 22-Feb-2002
The applicant said that its land had been misappropriated, and sought rectification of the register against the respondent who was a successor in title having bought the land from the wrongdoer.
Held: On registration, section 69 operated to . .
CitedFitzwilliam v Richall Holdings Services Ltd ChD 28-Jan-2013
The claimant said that his property had been sold by someone falsely purporting to be his agent under a forged power of attorney. . .
CitedPinto v Lim ChD 19-Apr-2005
The parties had been owners of a property. The defendant was thought to have forged a transfer of the house into her sole name, and then sold on the property to her brother, who was innocent of the forgery. The claimant, on returning to England . .
CitedBarclays Bank Plc v Guy ChD 16-Jan-2008
The defendant owned development land in Manchester. Under a transfer apparently signed by him the land came to be registered in the name of a company called Ten Acre Ltd, creating a charge in favour of Barclays Bank, which was duly registered on the . .
CitedBarclays Bank Plc v Guy CA 9-Apr-2008
The bank had sought and obtained an order recognising the vaidity of its charge over the land. The land had belonged to the defendant, but he said that the property had been registered by a fraudulen ttransfer, and charged by the transferee in the . .
CitedGuy v Barclays Bank Plc CA 8-Dec-2010
In an earlier action the claimant said that he had been defraused of land by a forged transfer. The transfereee had charged the land to the respondent bank who in that action gained a decision that its charge was effective, the transfer being . .
CitedSainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd v Olympia Homes Limited, Hughes etc ChD 17-Jun-2005
The claimant sought rectification of the land register. In a development deal, an option agreement had not been registered, and the land sold on. The land was required to allow the building of a roundabout necessary for the intended store. An . .
MentionedTaylor v Lawrence CA 4-Feb-2002
A party sought to re-open a judgment on the Court of Appeal after it had been perfected. A case had been tried before a judge. One party had asked for a different judge to be appointed, after the judge disclosed that he had been a client of the firm . .
CitedAjibade v Bank of Scotland Plc (Formerly Halifax Plc), Endeavour Personal Finance Limited (Alteration and Rectification of The Register) LRA 8-Apr-2008
LRA Rectification of the register – Fraud – ‘Correcting a mistake’ – second charge – Schedule 4 Paragraph 5(1)(a) of the Land Registration Act 2002
Ms Ajibade was the registered proprietor of a leasehold . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.535398

Williams and Glyn’s Bank Ltd v Boland: HL 19 Jun 1980

Wife in Occupation had Overriding Interest

The wife had made a substantial financial contribution to the purchase price of the house which was registered only in her husband’s name, and charged to the bank. The bank sought possession. The wife resisted saying that she had an overriding interest.
Held: Her equitable interest was not only a ‘minor interest’ within section 3 (xv) of the Act, but was also protected as an overriding interest because she occupied the land. The House considered the relationship between registered interests on the one hand, and equitable ‘minor interests’ and trusts on the other. Lord Wilberforce said: ‘The system of land registration, as it exists in England, which long antedates the Land Registration Act 1925, is designed to simplify and to cheapen conveyancing. It is intended to replace the often complicated and voluminous title deeds of property by a single land certificate, on the strength of which land can be dealt with. In place of the lengthy and often technical investigation of title to which a purchaser was committed, all he has to do is consult the register; from any burden not entered on the register, with one exception, overriding interests, he takes free. Above all, the system is designed to free the purchaser from the hazards of notice – real or constructive – which, in the case of unregistered land, involve him in inquiries, often quite elaborate, failing which he might be bound by equities. The Law of Property Act 1925 contains provisions limiting the effect of the doctrine of notice, but it still remains a potential source of danger to purchasers. By contrast, the only provisions of the Land Registration Act 1925 with regard to notice are provisions which enable a purchaser to take the estate free from equitable interests or equities whether he has notice or not. (See, for example, section 3 (xv) ‘minor interests’). The only kind of notice recognised is by entry on the register.

‘The exception just mentioned consists of ‘overriding interests’ listed in section 70. As to these, all registered land is stated to be deemed to be subject to such of them as may be subsisting in reference to the land, unless the contrary is expressed on the register. The land is so subject regardless of notice actual or constructive. In my opinion therefore, the law as to notice as it may affect purchasers of unregistered land, whether contained in decided cases, or in a statute (the Conveyancing Act 1882, section 3, Law of Property Act, section 199) has no application even by analogy to registered land. Whether a particular right is an overriding interest, and whether it affects a purchaser, is to be decided upon the terms of section 70, and other relevant provisions of the Land Registration Act 1925, and upon nothing else. In relation to rights connected with occupation, it has been said that the purpose and effect of section 70 (1) (g) of the Land Registration Act 1925 was to make applicable to registered land the same rule as previously had been held to apply to unregistered land.’ The existence of overriding interests within the system of registered conveyancing might be troublesome for purchasers, but ‘What is involved is a departure from an easy-going practice of dispensing with enquiries as to occupation beyond that of the vendor and accepting the risks of doing so. To substitute for this a practice of more careful enquiry as to the fact of occupation, and if necessary, as to the rights of occupiers can not, in my view of the matter, be considered as unacceptable. I adhere to this, but I do not accept the argument which learned counsel for the appellant sought to draw from it. His submission was that, in applying section 70(1)(g), we should have regard to and limit the application of the paragraph in the light of the doctrine of notice. But this would run counter to the whole purpose of the Act. The purpose, in each system, is the same, namely, to safeguard the rights of persons in occupation, but the method used differs. In the case of unregistered land, the purchaser’s obligation depends upon what he has notice of – notice actual or constructive. In the case of registered land, it is the fact of occupation that matters. If there is actual occupation, and the occupation has rights, the purchaser takes subject to them. If not, he does not. No further element is material.’
On the plain meaning of the words ‘actual occupation’, what is required is ‘physical presence, not some entitlement at law’ these words are ordinary words of plain English, and should, in my opinion, be interpreted as such’ and ‘the word ‘actual’ merely emphasises that what is required is physical presence, not some entitlement in law’ and ‘undivided shares in land can only take effect in equity, behind a trust for sale upon which the legal owner is to hold the land.’

Lord Wilberforce, Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Salmon and Lord Roskill
[1981] AC 487, [1980] 2 All ER 408, [1980] 3 WLR 138, [1980] UKHL 4
Bailii
Land Registration Act 1925 70(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedNational Provincial Bank Ltd v Hastings Car Mart Ltd CA 1964
The purpose and effect of section 70(1)(g) of the Land Registration Act 1925 was to make applicable to registered land the same rule as previously had been held to apply to unregistered land. (Russell LJ, Dissenting) ‘Nor should the mind be in any . .
CitedNational Provincial Bank Limited v Ainsworth HL 1965
The significance of the distinction between occupation and rights was that although the deserted wife was in actual occupation of the former matrimonial home, the quality of her rights was not such as to be capable of amounting to an overriding . .
ApprovedBridges v Mees ChD 1957
An overriding interest, namely an estate contract, was protected under s. 70(1) of the Act even though it could have been protected by a caution under s. 59. . .
ApprovedHodgson v Marks ChD 1970
The plaintiff, an elderly widow, transferred her house into the name of her lodger, but remained in occupation of the house, on exactly the same basis as before, until the lodger sold the house and the purchaser had mortgaged it to a building . .
Appeal FromWilliams and Glyn’s Bank Ltd v Boland CA 1979
Money was raised on mortgage of registered land and paid to a single trustee holding the land on trust for sale, and it was held that the rights of beneficiaries who were in occupation and of whom no enquiries had been made were not mere minor . .
OverruledCedar Holdings Ltd v Green CA 1981
A property was held in the joint names of a former husband and wife. To obtain a loan for the husband, a legal charge over the property was executed by the husband, but he had another woman execute for the wife, pretending to be her. The chargee . .

Cited by:
CitedMalory Enterprises Ltd v Cheshire Homes (UK) Ltd and others CA 22-Feb-2002
The applicant said that its land had been misappropriated, and sought rectification of the register against the respondent who was a successor in title having bought the land from the wrongdoer.
Held: On registration, section 69 operated to . .
DistinguishedCity of London Building Society v Flegg And Another HL 14-May-1987
A couple bought a property and registered it in their own names with substantial financial assistance from the parents of one of them. The parents occupied the house with them. Without telling the parents, the owners borrowed again, executing . .
AppliedKingsnorth Finance Co Ltd v Tizard ChD 1986
The marriage between the defendants had broken down, but the wife still visited the house regularly, staying and caring for the children when the husband was away. The house was held in his sole name. He charged it to the plaintiffs, who now sought . .
CitedFerrishurst Ltd v Wallcite Ltd CA 30-Nov-1998
A person in actual occupation of registered land at time of transfer can enforce his rights against the transferee. A sub-underlessee in occupation of part could enforce an option to purchase against the freeholder acquiring intermediate registered . .
CitedDougbar Properties Ltd v Keeper of the Registers of Scotland SCS 9-Feb-1999
Even if there existed an acknowledged error in the Land Registry, rectification was the only available remedy. The existence of an inaccuracy did not alter the legal reality that the registered proprietor had a right created by registration. In . .
CitedState of India v Sood and Others CA 30-Oct-1996
Beneficial equitable interests in land were overreached by a mortgage despite no the fact that no capital was actually advanced under the charge. . .
CitedBankers Trust Company v Namdar and Namdar CA 14-Feb-1997
The bank sought repayment of its loan and possession of the defendants’ property. The second defendant said that the charge had only her forged signature.
Held: Non-compliance with section 2 of the 1989 Act does not make a bargain illegal, and . .
CitedHalifax Building Society v Campbell-Lebens CA 4-Jun-1998
. .
CitedBhullar and Another v McArdle CA 10-Apr-2001
The defendant had registered a caution against the claimant’s land at the Land Registry. The claimant sought its removal and now appealed an order for rectification of the register against him. The parties had reached oral agreements as to the . .
CitedPritchard Englefield v Steinberg and Steinberg ChD 30-Jul-2004
Enforcement of charging order absolute. . .
CitedNational Westminster Bank Plc, Malhan Malhan v Malhan, The Secretary of State for Consitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor ChD 22-Apr-2004
. .
CitedLloyd and others v Dugdale and Another CA 21-Nov-2001
The claimants asserted a right to possession of land, and the defendant resisted, claiming a proprietary estoppel. A predecessor had intended to grant a sub-lease to the defendant, who had arranged for his company JAD Ltd to execute major works on . .
CitedLink Lending Ltd v Bustard CA 23-Apr-2010
The respondent had been detained in a secure mental unit for a year. In that time her home was charged to the appellant. She asserted that she had been a person in actual occupation. The chargee now appealed against a finding that the respondent had . .
CitedChaudhary v Yavuz CA 22-Nov-2011
The court was asked ‘whether and if so how an easement arising informally and not protected by any entry at the Land Registry can be effective against a purchaser of the land over which the easement would be exercised.’ The parties respectively . .
CitedCook v The Mortgage Business Plc CA 24-Jan-2012
The land owners sought relief from possession orders made under mortgages given in equity release schemes: ‘If the purchaser raises all or part of the purchase price on mortgage, and then defaults, the issue arises whether the mortgagee’s right to . .
CitedScott v Southern Pacific Mortgages Ltd and Others SC 22-Oct-2014
The appellant challenged a sale and rent back transaction. He said that the proposed purchaser had misrepresented the transaction to them. The Court was asked s whether the home owners had interests whose priority was protected by virtue of section . .
CitedLloyds Bank plc v Rosset CA 13-May-1988
Claim by a wife that she has a beneficial interest in a house registered in the sole name of her husband and that her interest has priority over the rights of a bank under a legal charge executed without her knowledge. The case raises a point of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land, Banking

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.180518

Diep v Land Registry: Admn 3 Dec 2010

The claimant had erected a building on land at the rear of his own property in 1986. He sought to register his title. He complained now that he had been granted only possessory and not absolute title. The land had been unregistered, but had belonged to Railtrack, who would not give consent.
Held: The claim failed. ‘The registrar, it seems to me, is plainly entitled to take a cautious — even an ultra cautious — view of the position so as to avoid putting public funds at risk.’ and ‘conveyancing throws up many surprises. Even on this small piece of land, the possibility of a surprise which might give rise to a claim on the public purse cannot wholly be excluded.’

Mitting J
[2010] EWHC 3315 (Admin)
Bailii
and Registration Act 2002 3 9 62
England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.427946

Zarb and Another v Parry and Another: CA 15 Nov 2011

The parties disputed the position of the boundary between their neighbouring properties. The appellant Z had succeeded in establishing that the the boundary was as they decribed on paper, but the respondents had succeeded in their claim for adverse posession. The appellants said that the occupation having been by consent, it could not be counted as adverse.
Held: The appeal failed. The appellants acts had been insufficient to disturb the adverse possession of the respondents.
The court gave guidance on an approach to the mitigation of such disputes by buyers of land: ‘ No doubt those advising on transfers of land will consider what they need to do in future to protect their clients from costly disputes such as this one. Purchasers are not necessarily protected merely because the seller gives an assurance that the dispute with a neighbour has seemingly ‘gone away’. Boundary disputes have a habit of reappearing until finally resolved. The neighbour or the neighbour’s successor in title may, for whatever reason, resuscitate the dispute, unless something is done to prevent them from doing so. It may be that the purchaser will have to consider whether to ask the neighbour to confirm the boundaries and have the necessary deed of confirmation registered at the Land Registry in a manner capable of binding successors in title. That will involve extra costs and delay but the costs may be less than the undoubted cost of litigation of this kind. If the neighbour refuses to be bound by an agreement as to the boundary the purchaser will then know the risks that he is running by completing the purchase. Moreover, the purchaser on acquiring possession might himself be advised to bring matters to a head by himself applying for registration as owner of the land in question.’

Lord Neuberger MR, Arden, Jackson LJJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 1306, [2011] WLR (D) 331
Bailii, WLRD
Land Registration Act 2002 98(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedJ Alston and Sons Ltd v BOCM Pauls Ltd ChD 28-Nov-2008
Hazel Marshall QC discussed the idea of consent in adverse possession claims, saying that mere acquiescence in another’s use of one land is not the same as the grant of permission for that user for the purposes of the stopping time running in favour . .
CitedRandall v Stevens And Others 25-Jun-1853
A landlord evicted a tenant who had failed to pay any rent for twenty years. Statute provided that a house could not be repossessed simply by exercising a right of entry.
Held: Lord Campbell LC, giving the judgment of the Court of Queen’s . .
CitedJ A Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Others v Graham and Another HL 4-Jul-2002
The claimants sought ownership by adverse possession of land. Once the paper owner had been found, they indicated a readiness to purchase their interest. The court had found that this letter contradicted an animus possidendi. The claimant had . .
CitedAllen v England 1862
The court considered a claim for land by adverse possession against the owner on paper. Erle CJ said: ‘It may be taken that the plaintiff had the beneficial occupation for more than twenty years, and if that will give him a title, I will give him . .
CitedBligh v Martin ChD 1968
The paper owner of the disputed land had grazed cattle on it in winter, and denied that the defendant claiming adverse possession had been in continuous occupation.
Held: Even though the adverse possessor had received rent from the real owner, . .
CitedPowell v McFarlane ChD 1977
A squatter had occupied the land and defended a claim for possession. The court discussed the conditions necessary to establish an intention to possess land adversely to the paper owner.
Held: Slade J said: ‘In the absence of evidence to the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land, Land

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.448324

Baxter v Mannion: ChD 18 Mar 2010

B appealed against an order for rectification against him of the land register returning ownership to M. B had obtained registration with possessory title, claiming to have kept horses on the field for many years in adverse possession of it. M had failed to reply to the original application. B said that the registration had been in accordance with procedure and was not a mistake as such, and therefore not subject to rectification.
Held: The proposed interpretation would be contrary to the policy behind the 2002 Act, and an invitation to fraud. The former registered proprietor would neither be able to claim compensation. The adjudicator had not applied correctly the appropriate burden of proof, which lay on the person applying for rectification.
In the circumstances it would be unjust to make an order when adverse possession had not been adequately established.

Henderson J
[2010] EWHC 573 (Ch), [2010] NPC 38, [2010] 1 WLR 1965
Bailii
Land Registration Rules 2003 189, Land Registration Act 2002 Sch 6
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedJ A Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Others v Graham and Another HL 4-Jul-2002
The claimants sought ownership by adverse possession of land. Once the paper owner had been found, they indicated a readiness to purchase their interest. The court had found that this letter contradicted an animus possidendi. The claimant had . .
CitedStephens and Another v Cannon and Another CA 14-Mar-2005
The claimants had purchased land from the defendants. The contract was conditional on a development which did not take place. The master had been presented with very different valuations of the property.
Held: The master was not entitled to . .
CitedJ A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v The United Kingdom ECHR 30-Aug-2007
UK Advers Possession Law – Not Compliant
The claimant had said that the UK law which allowed it to lose land by virtue of twelve year’s occupation by a squatter, interfered with its right to ownership of property.
Held: The UK law on adverse possession did comply with the Convention. . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromBaxter v Mannion CA 22-Feb-2011
The court was asked ‘can a man who has got his name registered as the proprietor of a parcel of registered land by wrongly claiming that he had been in adverse possession for ten years hang on to that title if the original proprietor, within 65 days . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.403358

Anderson Antiques (UK) Ltd v Anderson Wharf (Hull) Ltd and Another: ChD 23 May 2007

anderson_andersonChD2008

The claimants owned land against which they said, the defendant had wrongfully registered notices. They sought removal of the notices, damages, and an injunction to prevent further notices being registered. The first defendant asserted an oral agreement for the purchase of the site. The claimant sought a strike out of the defence.
Held: The balance between the doctrine of proprietary estoppel and section 2 of the 1989 Act is not yet clear. The court doubted that the defendant would be able to establish an estoppel to get around the Act. The evidence that the defendant believed that a contract had been created was not credible having istelf taken part in the tendering process which stood in place of the agreement it now asserted. The defence was struck out.

Briggs J
[2007] EWHC 2086 (Ch)
Bailii
Land Registration Act 2002 77, Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 2
Citing:
CitedYaxley v Gotts and Another CA 24-Jun-1999
Oral Agreement Creating Proprietory Estoppel
The defendant offered to give to the Plaintiff, a builder, the ground floor of a property in return for converting the house, and then managing it. They were friends, and the oral offer was accepted. The property was then actually bought in the name . .
CitedYeoman’s Row Management Ltd and Another v Cobbe CA 31-Jul-2006
The defendants orally agreed to sell the claimant a block of flats for andpound;12 million if he first obtained planning permission for it on terms as to a sharing of subsequent development profits. The claimant spent over andpound;100,000 and . .
CitedMCA Records Inc and Another v Charly Records Ltd and others (No 5) CA 5-Oct-2001
The court discussed the personal liability of a director for torts committed by his company: ‘i) a director will not be treated as liable with the company as a joint tortfeasor if he does no more than carry out his constitutional role in the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land, Contract, Estoppel

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.262175

Pickenham Romford Ltd v Deville: ChD 31 Jul 2013

The claimant company’s administrators sought an order to have vacated unilateral notices entered against land titles registered to the claimant. The court now gave its reasons for making the order as requested by way of summary relief. The notices had been based upon an assertion that the charges under which the respondent assrted title had been altered after execution, and invalidated.
Held: The notices were vacated. The amendments did not prejudice the claimant and did not therefore render the charges void, and ‘it is abundantly clear that there is simply no scope for Mr Deville to contend that it was agreed between him and Lloyds that he should be subrogated to Lloyds’ rights under the Lloyds PRL Debenture and Lloyds Charge. There is equally no scope for him to maintain, in the teeth of the documentation between PRL and BoS and the steps taken to give effect to what was agreed, not least the steps taken to release those two securities, to all of which he was fully privy, that in some way he can assert either that those two securities remained in full force and effect or that he enjoys rights of security over the assets of PRL on the terms of one or other of those two securities, let alone that he enjoys such rights in priority to BoS.’

Sir William Blackburne
[2013] EWHC 2330 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedPigot’s Case 1614
A written contact may be avoided if somebody makes a material alteration to it after it has been signed and without his consent. . .
CitedRaiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich A G v Crossseas Shipping Ltd and Others CA 2000
The claimant creditor bank made changes to the guarantee executed by the guarantee without its approval and after it had been signed and duly executed, by inserting the details of a service agent.
Held: The insertion did not work to alter the . .
CitedWragg and Another v Partco Group Ltd UGC Ltd CA 1-May-2002
A claim was made against directors of a company involved in a takeover, for failure to make proper disclosure. The case involved also other issues. The defendants appealed against a refusal to strike out the claim.
Held: The rules made . .
CitedCelador Productions Ltd v Melville ChD 21-Oct-2004
The applicants each alleged breach of copyright and misuse of confidential information in the format of the television program ‘Who wants to be a Millionaire’. The defendant appealed a refusal to strike out the claim. It was not contended that no . .
CitedCotton (T/A Allmat Enterprises) v Rickard Metals Inc QBD 21-Apr-2008
Eady J set out principles applying on applications for summary judgment: ‘the court needs to be satisfied that the relevant party’s case (in this instance that of Mr Cotton) is bound to fail on the material at present available and, secondly, that . .
See AlsoDaniels and others v Deville and others ChD 25-Jul-2008
The parties had entered into a joint venture which proved unsuccessful. The court was now asked to interpret a deed of dissolution if the agreement.
Held: Lindsay J determined the nature of the Joint Venture, the interests of the corporate . .
CitedBanque Financiere De La Cite v Parc (Battersea) Ltd and Others HL 16-Apr-1998
The making of an order for restitution after finding an unjust enrichment by subrogation, is not dependant upon having found any common or unilateral intention of the parties. The House distinguished between contractual subrogation of the kind most . .
CitedCheltenham and Gloucester Plc v Appleyard and Another CA 15-Mar-2004
The owners had purchased their property with a loan from the BBBS. A charge was then given to BCCI, which charge said no further charge could be registered without BCCI ‘s consent. The C and G agreed to lend a sum to refinance the entire borrowings, . .
CitedAnfield (UK) Ltd v Bank of Scotland Plc and Others ChD 24-Sep-2010
The court was asked as to the remedy of subrogation as it affects the priority of charges. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.514972

Knights Construction (March) Limited v Roberto Mac Limited, The Chief Land Registrar (Fraud, Forgery, Duress and Undue Influence): LRA 9 Feb 2011

knights_robertoLRA11

LRA On voluntary first registration in 2007, the land registered by mistake included land the paper title to which was vested in the Applicant. It adjoined a block of flats and shops and was used, for the most part under rights granted by their leases, for car parking and waste bins by the tenants. One part was fenced off with the common parts of the flats and had been used as a drying area by the tenants but was now derelict. The car parking area had been tarmaced by the Applicant in 1985 when the development was built but had been neglected since then and was open to the road. The newly registered proprietor sold the land with the adjoining building to the Respondent in 2009, and the transfer was registered. The Respondent cleared and fenced the land, but was immediately met with protests from the tenants and the Applicant. The fencing was then removed and pending resolution of the dispute as to ownership the land was used for parking by all parties and continued to be used for the residential tenants’ bins. Most of the tenancies were on long leases without any rent being payable. There were two flats let on assured shorthold tenancies.
Held: 1. The Respondent was not in possession of the land for the purposes of paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 to the Land Registration Act 2002.
2. The Applicant was in actual occupation of the fenced off drying area in a manner that should have been obvious to the Respondent on a reasonably careful inspection, so that the Respondent’s registered title was subject to the Applicant’s interest by virtue of paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to the Land Registration Act 2002 and the Applicant was entitled to have the register altered to remove that land from the Respondent’s title.

[2011] EWLandRA 2009 – 1459
Bailii
Land Registration Act 2002

Registered Land

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.429534

Alan Wibberley Building Ltd v Insley: HL 24 Mar 1999

The parties disputed ownership of a strip of land between a garden and a farm. The land was registered. There was a hedge and a ditch along the disputed boundary, it had been conceded in the Court of Appeal that a conveyance of land on the hedge side of the ditch transferred land only up to the middle of the hedge, whereas the application of the hedge and ditch rule suggested that the seller owned the strip between the hedge and the other side of the ditch.
Held: The reference to boundaries on an Ordnance Survey plan in a conveyance showing the boundary along the hedge did not displace the assumption that the hedge and ditch were formed within the boundaries of the property. There had been no previous common ownership. The rule in Vowles assumes the boundary exists first, and then the ditch is dug. If either is untrue the rule is displaced. The hedge and ditch presumption, far from being a touchstone of last resort is the best guide to the line of the boundary. Having referred to Land Registry maps based upon the Ordnance Survey, the House added that ‘the precise boundary must, if the question arises, be established by topographical and other evidence’.
‘Boundary disputes are a particularly painful form of litigation. Feelings run high and disproportionate amounts of money are spent. Claims to small and valueless pieces of land are pressed with the zeal of Fortinbras’s army.’ Appeal allowed.
Lord Hoffmann explained the hedge and ditch rule as follows: ‘There are certain presumptions which assist the inferences which may be drawn from the topographical features. Perhaps the best known is the one which is drawn from the existence along the boundary of a hedge and a ditch. In such a case, it is presumed that the boundary likes along the edge of the ditch on the far side from the hedge. The basis of this presumption was explained by Laurence J. in Vowles v. Miller (1810) 3 Taunt. 137 . . It should be noticed that this rule involves two successive presumptions. First, it is presumed that the ditch was dug after the boundary was drawn. Secondly, it is the presumed that the ditch was dug and the hedge grown in the manner described by Laurence J. If the first presumption is displaced by evidence which shows that the ditch was in existence before the boundary was drawn, for example, as an internal drainage ditch which was later used as a boundary when part of the land was sold, then there is obviously no room for the reasoning of Laurence J. to operate.’
He doubted the correctness of the concession made.

Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Clyde
Times 30-Apr-1999, Gazette 26-May-1999, [1999] UKHL 15, [1999] 1 WLR 894, [1999] 24 EG 160, [1999] NPC 54, (1999) 78 P and CR D19, (1999) 78 P and CR 327, [1999] EG 66, [1999] 2 EGLR 89, [1999] 2 All ER 897
House of Lords, Bailii
Land Registration Rules 1925 278
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedVowles v Miller 9-Jul-1810
Lawrence J said: ‘The rule about ditching is this. No man, making a ditch, can cut into his neighbour’s soil, but usually he cuts it to the very extremity of his own land: he is of course bound to throw the soil which he digs out, upon his own land; . .
CitedAsher v Whitlock CEC 3-Nov-1865
Possession of land is in itself a good title against anyone who cannot show a prior and therefore better right to possession. A possession which is wrongful against the true owner can found an action for trespass or nuisance against someone else. A . .
DisappliedFisher v Winch CA 1939
The land of both parties had been in common ownership. The first plot to be conveyed was sold by a conveyance which set out by reference to the numbers on an Ordnance map the different parcels with their description and acreage. The second . .
Appeal fromAlan Wibberley Building Ltd v Insley CA 12-Nov-1997
Where adjoining fields are separated by a hedge and a ditch, who owns the ditch?
Held: The old presumption as to the location of a boundary based on the layout of hedges and ditches is irrelevant where the conveyance was by reference to an OS . .

Cited by:
CitedKupfer Kupfer v Dunne CA 7-Nov-2003
Neighbours disputed the exact boundary between their houses. An extension and fence had been built. The judge had declared the boundary, and ordered the removal of fence posts.
Held: Such a dispute should be resolved by reference to . .
CitedGeoffrey Allan Chadwick, Sylvia Joyce Chadwick, Edward James Chadwick v Abbotswood Properties Ltd, Gordon Leonard Hauser, Pamela Ann Hauser, Rectory Pump Ltd ChD 18-May-2004
Between to new houses was a steep bank. Who owned it? Before the transfer there had been different plans and much correspondence.
Held: Where there was doubt as to the extent of land transferred, the court could look to the physical boundaries . .
Leading AuthorityPennock and Another v Hodgson CA 27-Jul-2010
In a boundary dispute, the judge had found a boundary, locating it by reference to physical features not mentioned in the unambigous conveyance.
Held: The judge had reiterated but not relied upon the statement as to the subjective views of the . .
CitedTaylor v Lambert and Another CA 18-Jan-2012
The court heard an appeal against a judgment in a boundary dispute, the losing party having latterly dicovered aerial photopgraphs. There appeared to be a difference between the total area as specified in a 1974 conveyance off of part and the area . .
CitedParmar and Others v Upton CA 22-Jul-2015
The parties disputed the application of the hedge and ditch rule in settling their boundary. The appellant wished to have reliance placed upon evidence only discovered after trial.
Held: The appeal failed. The Judge was, notwithstanding the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Registered Land

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.77706

Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages Ltd and Others: SC 22 Oct 2014

The appellant challenged a sale and rent back transaction. He said that the proposed purchaser had misrepresented the transaction to them. The Court was asked s whether the home owners had interests whose priority was protected by virtue of section 29(2)(a)(ii) of, and Schedule 3, paragraph 2, to the Land Registration Act 2002.
Held: The appeal failed. The vendors acquired no more than personal rights against the purchasers when they agreed to sell their properties on the basis of the purchasers’ promises that they would be entitled to remain in occupation. Those rights would only become proprietary and capable of taking priority over a mortgage when they were fed by the purchasers’ acquisition of the legal estate on completion, and then Cann would apply, with the effect that the acquisition of the legal estate and the grant of the charge would be one indivisible transaction, and the vendors would not be able to assert against the lenders their interests arising only on completion.
Lady Hale said: ‘the purchaser of land cannot create a proprietary interest in the land, which is capable of being an overriding interest, until his contract has been completed. If all the purchaser ever acquires is an equity of redemption, he cannot create an interest which is inconsistent with the terms of his mortgage.’

Lady Hale, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Collins
[2014] UKSC 52, [2014] HLR 48, [2015] 1 AC 385, [2014] 3 WLR 1163, [2014] WLR(D) 447, UKSC 2012/0102
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary
Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, Land Registration Act 2002 29(2)(a)(ii)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromCook v The Mortgage Business Plc CA 24-Jan-2012
The land owners sought relief from possession orders made under mortgages given in equity release schemes: ‘If the purchaser raises all or part of the purchase price on mortgage, and then defaults, the issue arises whether the mortgagee’s right to . .
CitedBannister v Bannister 1948
A claim that the owner had agreed to let the occupier live in a cottage rent free for as long as she wished was treated as a claim based on constructive trust, on the basis that the purchaser fraudulently set up ‘the absolute character of the . .
MentionedChurch of England Buidling Society v Piskor CA 1954
Weekly tenancies had been granted by the purchaser of the property, title to which was unregistered, before completion. The society now sought possession of the property. The tenants argued that although their tenancies were equitable, they were . .
CitedStrand Securities Ltd v Caswell CA 2-Feb-1965
The leaving of furniture in a flat or having a key to the flat or making occasional use of it was not enough to constitute actual occupation. Where A permits B to occupy land on B’s own behalf by way of gratuitous licence, A’s capacity as licensor . .
CitedLloyds Bank plc v Rosset CA 13-May-1988
Claim by a wife that she has a beneficial interest in a house registered in the sole name of her husband and that her interest has priority over the rights of a bank under a legal charge executed without her knowledge. The case raises a point of . .
CitedShaw v Foster HL 14-Mar-1872
As regards the trusteeship which arises for a vendor of land after exchange of contracts: ‘there cannot be any doubt of the relation subsisting in the eye of a Court of Equity between the vendor and the purchaser. The vendor was a trustee of the . .
CitedLysaght v Edwards ChD 20-Mar-1876
The testator had agreed to sell a farm, but died before completion.
Held: The farm passed under a devise of ‘all the real estate which at my death might be vested in me as trustee.’ On the making of contract for the purchase of land, the . .
CitedEgmont v Smith CA 1877
The court discussed the position of a vendor of land between exchange and completion: ‘He is certainly a trustee for the purchaser, a trustee, no doubt, with peculiar duties and liabilities, for it is a fallacy to suppose that every trustee has the . .
CitedRayner v Preston CA 8-Apr-1881
The vendors agreed to sell a house which they had insured against fire risk. The house was damaged by fire after contract but before completion, and the issue was whether the purchaser was entitled to the benefit of the insurance.
Held: . .
CitedCumberland Consolidated Holdings Limited v Ireland CA 1946
A vendor of a warehouse left in the cellars of a warehouse rubbish including bags of hardened cement which would be difficult to remove, and which affected the value of the property and precluded the proper use of the cellar. The buyer complained . .
CitedAbbey National Building Society v Cann HL 29-Mar-1990
Registered land was bought with an advance from the plaintiff. The transfer and charge were registered one month later, but in the meantime, the buyer’s parents moved in. When the buyer defaulted, his mother resisted possession proceedings, saying . .
CitedLloyds Bank plc v Rosset HL 29-Mar-1990
The house had been bought during the marriage but in the husband’s sole name. The plaintiff’s charge secured the husband’s overdraft. The bank issued possession proceedings. Mr Rosset had left, but Mrs Rosset claimed, as against the bank an interest . .
CitedMortgage Corporation Ltd v Nationwide Credit Corporation Ltd, Nationwide Building Society CA 20-May-1993
A notice of a charge, short of registration, does not give priority over an earlier un-registered charge. The effect of the notice was limited to that stated in the Act. . .
CitedNational and Provincial Building Society v Ahmed CA 1995
A mortgagor’s equity of redemption is extinguished when the mortgagee, in the exercise of his power of sale, enters into a contract of sale of the mortgaged property.
Millett LJ said: ‘The purpose of making an order under section 36 of the . .
CitedNationwide Anglia Building Society v Ahmed CA 1995
The First Defendant agreed to purchase a business from the Second Defendant for andpound;160,000. andpound;80,000 was raised by way of a secured loan from the plaintiff and was paid to the Second Defendant. The balance of andpound;80,000 was left . .
CitedYaxley v Gotts and Another CA 24-Jun-1999
Oral Agreement Creating Proprietory Estoppel
The defendant offered to give to the Plaintiff, a builder, the ground floor of a property in return for converting the house, and then managing it. They were friends, and the oral offer was accepted. The property was then actually bought in the name . .
CitedBirmingham Midshires Mortgage Services Ltd v Sabherwal CA 17-Dec-1999
An equity arising from a proprietary estoppel is not an ‘equitable interest’ capable of being overreached pursuant to section 2 of the Law of Property Act 1925. . .
CitedEnglewood Properties Limited v Patel and Another ChD 16-Feb-2005
The claimant was a property developer, which sought to sell a row of shops at auction. One lot was a Woolworths store, where the company owned both freehold and leasehold interests, with Woolworths occupying an underlease, which the claimant had . .
CitedTasker v Small 3-Jun-1836
The words in a Settlement to raise Money by ‘Mortgage, Annuity or otherwise,’ authorises a Sale of a reversionary Estate.
Lord Cottenham LC said that the rule by which a purchaser becomes in equity the owner of the property sold ‘applies only . .
CitedInland Revenue Commissioners v G Angus and Co CA 1889
Lord Esher MR rejected an argument that a specifically enforceable contract or agreement for the sale of land is in truth a conveyance: ‘And it is said that, when an agreement is such that equity will grant specific performance of it, it is to be . .
CitedUniversal Permanent Building Society v Cooke CA 1951
The mortgagor agreed to buy a shop with living accommodation above. She let the flat to her sister before completion, and by the date of the mortgage, the sister was in possession. After default, the lender sought possession under the mortgage, but . .
ApprovedCoventry Permanent Economic Building Society v Jones ChD 1951
The contracting purchaser of a property agreed, prior to completion, to let the ground floor of the property to two tenants. She subsequently borrowed a sum of money from the plaintiffs to enable her to complete the purchase. On completion, she . .
CitedOughtred v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 4-Nov-1959
The taxpayer and her son owned through a trust the entire beneficial interest in the shares of a company. She agreed to transfer other shares to him in return for his interest in the shares subject to the trust, releasing the trust. The Revenue . .
CitedChang v Registrar of Titles 11-Feb-1976
(High Court of Australia) The court discussed the trusteeship arising on a contract for the sale of land.
Mason J said: ‘It has long been established that a vendor of real estate under a valid contract of sale is a trustee of the property sold . .
CitedBerkley v Poulett and others CA 29-Oct-1976
Lord Poulett sold the Hinton St George Estate to X, and X sub-sold the house and grounds to Y. Both transactions were subsequently completed. Y brought action against the executors of Lord Poulett, and the main question which subsequently arose was . .
CitedKern Corporation Ltd v Walter Reid Trading Pty Ltd 1987
(High Court of Australia) The court discussed the status of the owner of land between exchange and completion on a sale: ‘it is both inaccurate and misleading to speak of the unpaid vendor under an uncompleted contract as a trustee for the purchaser . .
CitedBirmingham Midshires Mortgage Services Ltd v Sabherwal CA 17-Dec-1999
An equity arising from a proprietary estoppel is not an ‘equitable interest’ capable of being overreached pursuant to section 2 of the Law of Property Act 1925. . .
CitedTanwar Enterprises Pty Ltd v Cauchi 7-Oct-2003
High Court of Australia – Vendor and purchaser – Contracts for sale of land – Default by purchaser – Notice of termination – Supplemental deed requiring completion by stipulated date – Time of essence – Default by purchaser – Notice of termination – . .
CitedJerome v Kelly (Her Majesty’s Inspector of Taxes) HL 13-May-2004
In 1987, trustees holding land for various beneficiaries in undivided shares entered into a contract to sell it to a purchaser. In 1989 Mr and Mrs Jerome, who were absolutely entitled to interests in the land, assigned part of their beneficial . .
CitedCuthbertson v Irving 24-Jun-1859
Martin B said: ‘There are some points in the law relating to estoppels which seem clear. First, when a lessor without any legal estate or title demises to another, the parties themselves are estopped from disputing the validity of the lease on that . .
CitedRe Birmingham, deceased; Savage v Stannard 1957
An unpaid vendor’s lien arises the moment the contract is entered into. It is discharged on completion to the extent that the purchase money is paid. . .
CitedSargaison v Roberts ChD 1969
The court was asked as to a taxpayer’s entitlement to tax allowances under section 314 of the 1952 Act, and whether, for the purposes of the legislation, a transfer by the taxpayer into trust of a farm and the simultaneous grant by the trustees to . .
CitedLondon and Cheshire Insurance Co Ltd v Laplagrene Property Co Ltd ChD 1971
. .
CitedWatson v Goldsbrough 1986
Licensees of land owned by the wife’s parents agreed that an angling club could have fishing rights if they improved the ponds.
Held: The estoppel was fed when the licensees acquired the legal estate. . .
CitedUCB Bank plc v Beasley 1995
. .
CitedBarclays Bank Plc v Estates and Commercial Limited CA 20-Feb-1996
Millett LJ discussed the assertion of a vendor’s lien where a third party would be adversely affected: ‘A party with an equitable charge can be taken to agree to the postponement of his property against any party who was allowed to his knowledge to . .
CitedBell and others v General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation Ltd CA 11-Dec-1997
The court was asked: ‘whether a company which has granted a lease of business premises in circumstances which would ordinarily mean that the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (‘the Act’) applied can invoke s. 24 A of that Act even . .
CitedCuthbertson v Irving 7-Jul-1860
Held: Decision affirmed. Neither the lessee nor the lessor can dispute one another’s title and if the lessor without a legal estate later acquires one, the estoppel is ‘fed’ . .
Wrongly DecidedWoolwich Equitable Building Society v Marshall ChD 1952
. .
CitedWilliams and Glyn’s Bank Ltd v Boland HL 19-Jun-1980
Wife in Occupation had Overriding Interest
The wife had made a substantial financial contribution to the purchase price of the house which was registered only in her husband’s name, and charged to the bank. The bank sought possession. The wife resisted saying that she had an overriding . .
CitedPaddington Building Society v Mendelsohn 1985
(Bristol County Court) The relevant date for identifying occupation for section 70 was the date of execution of the building society’s charge. On appeal the case was decided on a different point. . .
CitedBristol and West Building Society v Henning CA 2-Apr-1985
. .
CitedWaya, Regina v SC 14-Nov-2012
The defendant appealed against confiscation orders made under the 2002 Act. He had bought a flat with a substantial deposit from his own resources, and the balance from a lender. That lender was repaid after he took a replacement loan. He was later . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land, Financial Services

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.537832

Silkstone and Another v Tatnall: ChD 2 Jul 2010

The court was asked whether a Land Registry Adjudicator could refuse to accept a party’s withdrawal from the adjudication. The parties had disputed a right of way. The claimant wanted to add a claim under the 1925 Act, but after this was refused, he had sought to withdraw leaving open a right to pursue a similar claim at Court. The Adjudicator refused.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The Adjudicator’s task was to decide the matter before him, and the Adjudicator’s jurisdiction to determine the matter referred to him continued notwithstanding the purported withdrawal of the claimants.
The 2003 Rules were silent in the issue. The court distinguished between a party wanting simply to withdraw the adjudication, and one accepting that cancellation of his notice would follow.
Floyd J said: ‘Referral to the Adjudicator involves a recognition that the objection is not obviously groundless, and that the parties have not achieved agreement as to the correct state of the Register. The Adjudicator is given the task of determining, by examination of evidence, those applications where there is a dispute as to the underlying rights . . the reference to the Adjudicator is better viewed as a proceeding whose purpose it is to determine the underlying right, quite unlike the administrative procedure in the Land Registry . . Proceedings before the Adjudicator are triggered precisely because it is necessary to determine those rights in order to dispose of the objection. The procedure laid down by the Rules is plainly one directed at determining those underlying rights . . there is no reason why administrative steps, such as unilateral withdrawal of an objection, which would be possible before the Registrar, should be available as of right in proceedings before the Adjudicator, which are of a different character.’

Floyd J
[2010] EWHC 1627 (Ch), [2010] 39 EG 110, [2010] NPC 76, [2010] 28 EG 84 (CS)
Bailii
Law of Property Act 1925 62, Land Registration Act 2002 73, Land Registration Rules 2003
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromThe Chief Land Registrar v Silkstone and Others CA 14-Jul-2011
The Chief Land Registrar appealed against the dismissal of his appeal against the adjudicator’s decision on the cancellation of a unilateral notice. On the day of the adjudication, the Silkstones had purported to withdraw their case, wanting to take . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.420224

Jayasinghe v Liyanage: ChD 18 Feb 2010

The claimant appealed against cancellation of his application for a restriction against the defendant’s registered title. The adjudicator had found that the claimant’s assertion of an interest in the land was a fiction.
Held: The appeal failed. The adjudicator’s task was not limited as suggested. Briggs J said: ‘what has to be referred to the Adjudicator under section 73(7), where an objection which is not obviously groundless cannot be disposed of by agreement, is not merely the question whether the applicant has a relevant right or claim, but the additional question whether the entry of a restriction is necessary or desirable for the purpose of protecting that right or claim. Both of those questions fall within what is described in section 73(7) as ‘the matter’ to be referred to the Adjudicator.’ Accordingly it was not open to the claimant to insist that the adjudicator should have limited his enquiry as she suggested. However the documents did suggest a mvement of funds of the sort alleged, but the adjudicator’s infelicity in describing this did not undermine his conclusion.
In view of the fact that the case pleaded by each party suggested serious criminal conduct on their own part, the judge requested submissions as to why the matters should not be referred to the CPS for investigation.

Briggs J
[2010] EWHC 265 (Ch), Times 09-Apr-2010, [2010] 16 EG 108, [2010] NPC 20, [2010] 8 EG 105, [2010] 1 WLR 2106
Bailii
Land Registration Act 2002 42(1)(c), Land Registration Rules 2003 (SI 2003 No 1417) 93
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedThe Republic of Croatia v The Republic Of Serbia ChD 2-Jul-2009
A person may have a sufficient interest in the making of an entry to enable him (or it) to apply for the entry of a restriction within the meaning of section 43(1)(c) of the Act, on the basis of a claim to an interest in the registered estate, even . .
At LRAJayasinghe v Liyanage LRA 18-Feb-2010
Practice and Procedure : Scope of Jurisdiction – Dispute as to ownership of property on trusts . .

Cited by:
CitedThe Chief Land Registrar v Silkstone and Others CA 14-Jul-2011
The Chief Land Registrar appealed against the dismissal of his appeal against the adjudicator’s decision on the cancellation of a unilateral notice. On the day of the adjudication, the Silkstones had purported to withdraw their case, wanting to take . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.401646

Baxter v Mannion: CA 22 Feb 2011

The court was asked ‘can a man who has got his name registered as the proprietor of a parcel of registered land by wrongly claiming that he had been in adverse possession for ten years hang on to that title if the original proprietor, within 65 days of its being posted to him, failed to fill up and return a form posted to him by the Land Registry? Or can the original proprietor apply to the Registrar to have the register of title rectified by ‘correcting a mistake’? Does the machinery of the Land Registration Act 2002 allow a party to take someone else’s land by operation of a bureaucratic machinery which trumps reality?’ M had purchased a field and been registerd as its proprietor. B used it from time to time to graze his horses and then applied for and was given possessory title, exaggerating the extent of his use. M had failed to respond to the notice served on him. B now appealed against rectification by correction of a mistake.
Held: B’s appeal failed. There was no reason to limit the use of the phrase ‘correction of a mistake’ in the way suggested. B here had had no proper basis for his application. The policy behind the 2002 Act had been to make it more, not less, difficult to obtain possessory title.

Mummery, Jacob, Tomlinson LLJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 120, [2011] 1 WLR 1594
Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWCA Civ 120, [2011] 20 EG 114, [2011] 2 All ER 574
Bailii
Land Registration Act 2002 Sch 6
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromBaxter v Mannion ChD 18-Mar-2010
B appealed against an order for rectification against him of the land register returning ownership to M. B had obtained registration with possessory title, claiming to have kept horses on the field for many years in adverse possession of it. M had . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.429661

Oun v Ahmad: ChD 19 Mar 2008

The parties agreed in writing for the sale of leasehold property to the claimant. One document had been signed, but later one said that it had not included an aportionment. Another document then set out the apportionment. When the defendant refused to proceed, the claimant registered a unilateral notice which the defendant challenged. The parties disagreed as to what had taken place. The adjudicator said that the writing did not satisfy setion 2 of the 1989 Act. He refused rectification and cancelled the notice. The claimant appealed. The claimant said that there was no express finding that the second document so affected the first as to destroy its utility as a complete contract.
Held: The appeal failed. The original document had excluded the details of the apportionment and therefore had not included all the terms of the contract, and the contract did not satisfy section 2. When considering whether two documents were part of one contract, ‘The true question is whether the arrangements are such that the matters are independent in the sense that it is not a term of the contract for the sale of land that the second contract must also be performed. ‘

[2008] EWHC 545 (Ch)
Bailii
Land Registration Act 2002, Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 2
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedWhiteside v Whiteside CA 1950
The husband had executed a deed in favour of his former wife after dissolution of their marriage covenanting to pay a specified sum per annum free of income tax up to but not exceeding a stated amount. This provision was in substitution for one . .
CitedJoscelyne v Nissen CA 1970
A father entered into a written contract with his daughter by which he transferred to her his car hire business in return for her agreement to pay him a pension and discharge certain expenses. In their discussions it had been agreed between them . .
CitedGrossman v Hooper CA 11-Apr-2001
The parties had lived together in the house, each contributing but held in the name of one only. The parties disputed the effect under the 1989 Act of a letter signed by each of them setting out their agreement as to the basis on which it was held. . .
CitedSwainland Builders Ltd v Freehold Properties Ltd CA 2002
Swainland Builders Ltd owned the freehold of a block of flats. It had granted 99-year leases at ground rents of all the flats except numbers 11 and 18. It had intended to sell the block subject to the retention of flats 11 and 18 which it initially . .
CitedKilcarne Holdings Ltd v Targetfollow (Birmingham) Ltd, Targetfollow Group Ltd ChD 9-Nov-2004
The defendant entered into an agreement for lease, incurring substantial obligations. When it could not meet them it sought assistance from the claimant, who now claimed to have an interest in a joint venture. The draft documentation originally . .
CitedAllnutt and Another v Wilding and others; Re Strain (deceased) CA 3-Apr-2007
The trustees of a discretionary settlement requested its rectification on the basis that the now deceased settlor’s solicitor had mistakenly not appreciated the need to confer interests in possession on the beneficiaries, with the consequence that . .
CitedRobert Leonard Developments Limited v Wright CA 23-Mar-1994
The terms expressly agreed by the parties provided for the grant of a lease and the sale of the contents of the property. There was a single agreement for the lease and the contents. The written document did not incorporate the terms as to the sale . .
CitedRe Butlin’s Settlement Trusts 1976
Sir Billy Butlin had executed a voluntary settlement to allow a majority of trustees to exercise a power under the settlement. By a drafting error the settlement did not give effect to this intention.
Held: The court could rectify the . .
CitedRacal Group Services Limited v Ashmore CA 1995
The company had covenanted to pay an annual sum to charity. Since the last payment under the covenant was to be made less than three years after the execution of the deed, an intended tax advantage was not secured.
Held: The company’s appeal . .
CitedMcCausland and Another v Duncan Lawrie Ltd and Another CA 18-Jun-1996
The parties entered into a written contract for the sale of land which, in error, provided for completion on a Sunday. The parties varied the date to the Friday but did not execute a new contract which would comply with section 2(1) of the 1989 Act. . .

Cited by:
CitedNorth Eastern Properties Ltd v Coleman and Another CA 19-Mar-2010
The appellants challenged specific performance orders obliging them to complete the purchase of apartments, saying that the contracts had not complied with the 1989 Act, and that their repudiation of the contracts had been accepted. The contracts . .
CitedAshcroft v Barnsdale and Others ChD 30-Jul-2010
The parties sought to rectify a deed of family arrangement varying a will. The variation deed had had several mistakes which in fact increased the sum of Inheritance Tax owed. HMRC refused to accept the rectification deed unless approved by the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Registered Land

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.266475

Lee v Barrey: CA 1957

The registered proprietor of land argued that he had become owner of a larger plot of land after a transfer plan showed regular boundaries but the markings on the ground showed irregular ones: ‘as we are concerned with a general filed map or plan, the sole question for us is whether, notwithstanding the transfer and the facts I have mentioned, the effect of the statutory provisions, sections 19 and 69 in particular, is that as matters stand what the defendant has, and is entitled to say he has, is a piece of land identified by reference to the map on his certificate; and the argument is that, if you look at that map, it is as plain as possible that there is no question of an angled division; the piece of land of which the defendant is certified as proprietor is regular in shape.’ As to which: ‘You are, therefore, told that this document does no more than indicate the boundaries, and – what I think is far more significant – that what they are intending to do is to show what you would find on the transfer plan. When all that is added together, I am for my part left in no doubt that this plan cannot be set up to overturn the plain effect of what otherwise would have resulted from the bargain made between the defendant and his vendor as had been recorded in his contract and in his instrument of transfer.’
Registered title plan boundaries are only indicative and the general boundaries rule allows revisions to be made to the filed plan at any time. The general boundaries rule is confined to the effect of the filed plan only.
. . And: ‘It is true that a property dispute may, and frequently does, involve boundaries, and that a boundary dispute involves in some degree a property dispute; and if the divergence is very great indeed, you may say that the matter has passed from any sensible use of the phrase ‘boundary dispute’ and becomes something else. But applying the common sense test, if, as Mr. Plowman invited us to do, you put the question here: is the plaintiff saying in truth that the defendant got the wrong property by the land certificate? I would answer the question negatively. I think, for my part, that there is no doubt that the certificate purported to give him, and gives him, the right property. What, on the evidence, it has failed to do is to indicate its boundaries with sufficient correctness and precision.’

Lord Evershed MR
[1957] Ch 251
Land Registration Act 1925 19 69
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedGeoffrey Allan Chadwick, Sylvia Joyce Chadwick, Edward James Chadwick v Abbotswood Properties Ltd, Gordon Leonard Hauser, Pamela Ann Hauser, Rectory Pump Ltd ChD 18-May-2004
Between to new houses was a steep bank. Who owned it? Before the transfer there had been different plans and much correspondence.
Held: Where there was doubt as to the extent of land transferred, the court could look to the physical boundaries . .
CitedDrake and Another v Fripp CA 3-Nov-2011
The parties disputed the location of the boundary between their properties. An appeal against the adjudicator’s award altering the filed plan.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘there was no restriction on the adjudicator’s power to direct the Land . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.197731

Smith, Regina (on the Application of) v The Land Registry (Peterborough Office): Admn 13 Feb 2009

The applicant sought judicial review of the cancellation of his application for first registration of land by adverse possession. The application had been rejected because a public right of way existed through it, and the claimant had not shown the necessary intention to possess exclusively of others.
Held: The claim failed. A public right of way could not be defeated by adverse possession.

Pelling QC J
[2009] EWHC 328 (Admin)
Bailii
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 851
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedDawes v Hawkins 6-Jul-1860
A highway had been unlawfully stopped up by the adjoining owner and diverted by another route. It was held that the public had a right to deviate on to the adjoining land. The road was subsequently diverted back to its original route. Some years . .
CitedTurner v Ringwood Highway Board 1870
The highway extended to a width of 50 feet. After adoption trees grew in that part not used as the actual road.
Held: Once a highway exists the public has a right to use the whole of the width of the highway and not just that part of it . .
CitedBakewell Management Limited v Brandwood and others HL 1-Apr-2004
Houses were built next to a common. Over many years the owners had driven over the common. The landowners appealed a decision that they could not acquire a right of way by prescription over the common because such use had been unlawful as a criminal . .
CitedJ A Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Others v Graham and Another HL 4-Jul-2002
The claimants sought ownership by adverse possession of land. Once the paper owner had been found, they indicated a readiness to purchase their interest. The court had found that this letter contradicted an animus possidendi. The claimant had . .
CitedSeddon v Smith 1877
Adverse possession was claimed over land subject to a private grant of a right of way. The defendant had a paper title to a strip of land along Molyneux Lane. The plaintiff sought damages for trespass, claiming for wrongful abstraction of coal from . .
CitedLord Advocate v Lord Lovat 1880
Lord O’Hagan considered the nature of possession as regards land: ‘As to possession, it must be considered in every case with reference to the peculiar circumstances. The acts, implying possession in one case, may be wholly inadequate to prove it in . .
CitedLondon Borough of Lambeth v Blackburn CA 14-Jun-2001
The appellant had broken into an empty council owned flat, and subsequently occupied it. After twelve years the authority obtained a court order for possession. The court had held that the appellant had not had a sufficient animus possidendi since . .
CitedLondon Borough of Bromley v Morritt CA 21-Jun-1999
The defendants appealed against orders relating to the construction of a sewage pipe through their garden under powers given under the Act. The defendant had later blocked the pipe and the authority sought to recover the costs of repair. He claimed . .
CitedHaigh v West CA 1893
The court was asked about rights of pasturage granted over a public highway. The neighbouring land owner, and Lord of the Manor, claimed damages from the tenant for trespass in pasturing his sheep on the road. There was no evidence in whom the soil . .
CitedHarvey v Truro Rural District Council 1903
Land which had been built over was part of the public highway. The highway authority had as far back as living memory extended used a portion of a strip alongside a highway for the purpose of depositing material for the repair of the roads. A few . .
CitedSt Ives Corporation v Wadsworth ChD 1908
A piece of land bordered by a river a bridge and a highway was fenced off by the highway authority. The defendant had used the land as part of his adjoining house and land. The plaintiffs sought clarification that they could remove the fence as they . .
CitedHirst and Agu v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire QBD 1987
The defendants were arrested after distributing leaflets outside a furriers, and appealed against convictions for obstructing the highway.
Held: The appeals succeeded. In deciding whether there was a lawful excuse for a technical obstruction . .
CitedPowell v McFarlane ChD 1977
A squatter had occupied the land and defended a claim for possession. The court discussed the conditions necessary to establish an intention to possess land adversely to the paper owner.
Held: Slade J said: ‘In the absence of evidence to the . .
CitedTithe Redemption Commission v Runcorn Urban District Council CA 1954
The court considered the effect of a strip of land being designated as a public right of way. Denning LJ said: ‘The statute . . vest[s] in the local authority the top spit, or perhaps, I should say, the top two spits of the road for a legal estate . .
CitedSeekings v Clarke 1961
Lord Parker CJ said: ‘It is perfectly clear that anything which substantially prevents the public from having free access over the whole of the highway which is not purely temporary in nature is an unlawful obstruction’. . .
CitedGlamorgan County Council v Carter QBD 1962
A caravan owner appealed against an enforcement notice on the basis that no planning permission was required because the parking of caravans was the purpose for which the land had been last used.
Held: Factually that was correct. Prima facie . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromSmith, Regina (on The Application of) v Land Registry (Peterborough Office) and Another CA 10-Mar-2010
The appellant had lived in a caravan on the verge of a byway and had been here for more than twelve years. He appealed against rejection of his request for possessory title. He said that there was no support in law for the maxim that adverse . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land, Land

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.317980

Tower Hamlets v Barrett and Another: CA 19 Jul 2005

The defendant tenants appealed an order for them to surrender possession of land which they claimed had been acquired by adverse possession. The buildings, including one which shared a party wall with the building owned by the defendants had been demolished in 1960, and the land enclosed. By former tenants. The land was registered in 1978. In 1977, the then tenants, placed a lockable gate in the boundary fence and had used it as part of their premises until 1989. The defendants acquired the freehold of their own property in 1993. They had part completed the building of an extension on the land, but stopped when the claimant threatened proceedings.
Held: A tenant who encroaches on a neighbour’s land is presumed to act for the benefit of his landlord. The making of a grant by the authority to restore the wall was not done as owner of the land but as a public authority. The judge had erred in find that adverse possession had not been established up to 1995. The correspondence and offer to purchase the freeholder’s interest by the landlord would operate to defeat the landlord’s claim, however that acknowledgment was not made by the person then in possession, and was ineffective. The possessory title had been transferred with the main property when the defendants purchsed it. Appeal allowed.

Thorpe LJ, Wall LJ, Neuberger LJ
[2005] EWCA Civ 923
Bailii
Limitation Act 1980 15
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedKingsmill v Millard 20-Jun-1855
Parke B set out the doctrine that a tenant acquiring adjoining land by adverse possession acquires it on behalf of his landlord: ‘It is laid down in all the cases – whether the inclosed land is part of the waste, or belongs to the landlord or a . .
CitedJ A Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Others v Graham and Another HL 4-Jul-2002
The claimants sought ownership by adverse possession of land. Once the paper owner had been found, they indicated a readiness to purchase their interest. The court had found that this letter contradicted an animus possidendi. The claimant had . .
CitedPowell v McFarlane ChD 1977
A squatter had occupied the land and defended a claim for possession. The court discussed the conditions necessary to establish an intention to possess land adversely to the paper owner.
Held: Slade J said: ‘In the absence of evidence to the . .
CitedSmirk v Lyndale Developments Ltd ChD 1975
The court considered the doctrine that a tenant acquiring title to land by adverse possession, did so on behalf of hs landlord.
Held: The cases demonstrated that ‘the law . . has got into something of a tangle’, but the doctrine, at least as . .
CitedLittledale v Liverpool College CA 1900
The mere storage of items in a property was insufficient to demonstrate the necessary intention to dispossess the rightful owner. It was a mere exercise of the rights under an easement. Enclosure of land is not necessarily decisive. Lord Lindley MR . .
CitedMayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Hounslow v Anne Minchinton CA 19-Mar-1997
The defendant asserted title to a strip of land by adverse possession. The judge had held that the occupation by the claimant had been insufficient to establish possession.
Held: The use of the land as a garden for compost heaps and similar . .
CitedBritish Railways Board v G J Holdings Ltd 1974
There can be no adverse possession where the squatter’s use of the land was not inconsistent with the use intended by the paper owner. . .
CitedIn re River Steamer Company 1871
A without prejudice letter was written by a person claiming adverse possession of land to the paper owner offering to purchase the land. The paper owner said this was an acknowledgment of his title.
Held: The letter was written in the context . .
CitedColin Dawson Windows Ltd v Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk, Howard CA 20-Jan-2005
In a claim for adverse possession, the court will readily infer the grant of a licence (so as to defeat an assertion that possession is adverse to the owner) during negotiations for the purchase or letting of land, where the negotiating purchaser or . .
CitedDoe d. Lewis v Rees 1834
Encroachments made by a tenant enured for the benefit of his landlord, ‘unless it appears clearly by some evidence at the time of the making of the encroachments that the tenant intended the encroachments for his own benefit . . ‘ . .
CitedDoe d. Croft v Tidbury 1854
. .
CitedMichael Batt Charitable Trust v Adams ChD 2001
The court looked at what was required to establish adverse possession in a claim for land. Laddie J said: ‘The only factor that appears, at first sight, to point in the direction to exclude anyone, is the fact that Mr Higgs maintained and repaired . .
CitedTabor v Godfrey 1895
Where a tenant occupies land adjacent to land demised to him by the landlord, he occupies it as additional to the tenancy, and subject to its terms. . .
CitedEdginton v Clark CA 1964
An offer to purchase the paper owner’s interest, even if made ‘subject to contract’, can be a sufficient acknowledgement of his title to defeat a claim for adverse possession. Upjohn LJ said: ‘If a man makes an offer to purchase freehold property, . .
CitedDoe d. Baddeley v Massey 1851
A paper owner, as a stranger to the landlord and tenant relationship, cannot invoke an acknowledgment by the squatter’s landlord. The doctrine is based on estoppel. ‘the landlord is thereby entitled against the tenant who took, but not against a . .
CitedWatcham v Attorney-General of the East Africa Protectorate PC 1919
The Watchams held land along the bank of the Nairobi River. It had been conveyed to them by the Crown by a certificate under the East African Land Regulations. The certificate gave the area transferred as ’66 3/4 acres, or thereabouts’, but included . .
CitedBeaulane Properties Ltd v Palmer ChD 23-Mar-2005
The paper owner sought possession of land. The defendant said he had acquired a possessory title. The land was registered.
Held: The claimant’s human rights under article 1 were engaged. To be justifiable, the interference in that right had to . .
CitedMalekshad v Howard de Walden Estates Limited HL 5-Dec-2002
A house and an adjoining building had been first demised under one lease, then separated vertically. Two separate residential properties now existed.
Held: The vertical division meant that the two houses could not be enfranchised as one under . .
CitedF L Schuler AG v Wickman Machine Tools Sales Limited HL 4-Apr-1973
The parties entered an agreement to distribute and sell goods in the UK. They disagreed as to the meaning of a term governing the termination of the distributorship.
Held: The court can not take into account the post-contractual conduct or . .

Cited by:
CitedChilds and Another v Vernon CA 16-Mar-2007
The parties disputed the boundary between their properties, alleging various trespasses. The judge ordered a single expert witness. The court had been unable to establish the line of the boundary from the conveyances or the Land Registry plans. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land, Limitation

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.228924