swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases. Â
Registered Land - From: 1960 To: 1969
This page lists 8 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.
ÂRe Dance's Way [1962] Ch 490
1962
CA
Registered Land
The chief land registrar should not decide the construction of an instrument, under the power conferred on him by rule 298(1) of the Land Registration Rules, where there was a dispute of the fact as to the surrounding circumstances, but he should refer the matter to the court in pursuance of the power conferred on him by rule 298(2) of those Rules.
1 Citers
Â
Heywood v BDC Properties Ltd (No 1) [1963] 1 WLR 975
1963
CA
Wilmer LJ
Registered Land
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 vacated the registration.
Wilmer LJ said: " It seems to me that this is a clear case and that the judge was plainly right. The correspondence relied on as constituting an estate contract was precisely specified and limited to the period between the dates given. With regard to that correspondence, the judge in his judgment said: 'I will not go through that correspondence in detail. It will be sufficient for me to say that it is clear beyond argument that nothing in that correspondence creates a binding contract as between the plaintiffs and the defendants. The whole correspondence consists of negotiations 'subject to contract' for the sale of land, those negotiations being conducted on the basis that a contract would in due course be entered into and that the parties would not be bound until a contract was entered into.' I entirely agree with what the judge said in that passage; indeed, the contrary has not really been argued; for Mr, Merriton has admitted that on the correspondence as it stands he cannot understand (contend?) that a binding contract was entered into. If that be right, then, it seems to me, the entry which is on the register ought not to be allowed to stand.
Mr. Merriton has, however, indicated that it may be possible, with the aid of documents which are not at present available, and possibly with the aid of oral evidence from a witness, to prove that there was some other contract. Assuming for the sake of argument that he is justified in that contention, it does not seem to me to affect the question whether this particular entry in these terms ought to be allowed to stand. Agreeing, as I do, with the judge that on the correspondence it is quite clear that the alleged contract registered was not a contract, I also agree with him in the conclusion he reached that the previous case of In re Engall's Agreement was clearly distinguishable."
1 Citers
Â
 St Marylebone Property Co Ltd v Fairweather; HL 1963 - [1963] AC 510; [1962] UKHL 1; [1962] 2 WLR 1020; [1962] 2 All ER 288
Â
Heywood v BDC Properties Ltd (No 2) [1964] 1 WLR 971; [1964] 2 All ER 702
1964
CA
Harman LJ
Registered Land
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 prevent "an abuse of this sort" because the registration "ought never to have been made":
1 Cites
1 Citers
Â
National Provincial Bank Ltd v Hastings Car Mart Ltd [1964] Ch 665
1964
CA
Lord Denning MR, Russell LJ
Registered Land, Land
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 way distracted by the fact that the owner of the rights under section 70(1) (g) is identified as a person in actual occupation. It is the rights of such a person which constitute the overriding interest and must be examined, not his occupation."
Registered Land Act 1925 70(1)(g)
1 Cites
1 Citers
Â
National Provincial Bank Limited v Ainsworth [1965] AC 1175
1965
HL
Lord Upjohn, Lord Wilberforce
Registered Land
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 interest. A purchaser of land and in particular a reversion to a lease, will take an interest subject to an equitable right only (a) where he has notice, including of course a deemed notice, of the right; and (b) where that right is "such that it creates a legal or equitable estate or interest in [that] land".
Lord Upjohn: "Furthermore . . . the [deserted] wife’s occupation is not exclusive against the deserting husband for he can at any moment return and resume the role of occupier without the leave of the wife. Nevertheless, I cannot seriously doubt that in this case in truth and in fact the wife at all material times was and is in exclusive occupation of the home. Until her husband returns she has dominion over the house and she could clearly bring proceedings against trespassers; so I shall for the rest of this opinion assume that the wife was and is in exclusive occupation of the matrimonial home at all material times. "
Registered Land Act 1925 70(1)(g)
1 Cites
1 Citers
Â
 Webb v Pollmount Ltd; ChD 1966 - [1966] Ch 584
Â
 Frazer v Walker; PC 1967 - [1967] AC 569
Â
