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: 1999 To: 1999
This page lists 7 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.
ÂWilson and Others v Keeper of the Registers of Scotland [1999] SCLR 872
1999
SCS
Lord McCluskey
Registered Land
(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 nostanding to object. Held: To apply for the alteration of the register kept under the 1979 Act, a person had to show a private interest. The application for alteration of the register was not a vindication of a public right even though, on the facts of the case, it was right to use the foreshore that was in issue.
Lord McCluskey said: "In our opinion, there is no answer to this fundamental preliminary point. The scheme of the Act is clear from the full discussion in Short's Trustee, not only in the House of Lords but also in the Court of Session . . and it need not be discussed here. There is nothing in the present case to suggest that we are here concerned with a vindication of public right of the kind considered by Lord Clyde in Scottish Old People's Welfare Council, petitioners [1987] SLT 179. This is not a true actio popularis in the sense discussed by Lord Clyde at the passage referred to. The fact, if it be a fact, that the appellants have been interdicted from encroaching upon the subjects or part of the subjects included in the two land certificates in question does not appear to us to give them any title to seek a rectification under the provisions of the 1979 Act. We consider that it is clear that those in unchallenged possession of the subjects (even if not proprietors) have a right to exclude others from encroaching upon them. A proprietor in possession never needed to produce a complete feudal title in order to obtain interdict against encroachments upon his property . . The appellants have never claimed that they had any title whatsoever to the subjects; they claim no competing title. As the appellants themselves acknowledge, persons who were total strangers to Greenock could not have a title to seek rectification under section 9."
Land Registration (Scotland) Act 1979
1 Citers
Â
Horrill v Cooper [1999] 80 P&CR D16)
1999
CA
Mummery LJ
Registered Land
(Year?) The appelant had bought unregistered land knowing of restrictive covenants and paying accordingly, but the covenants had not been registered and his title was free of them. He now appealed an order for rectification of the register which had been made because he had acquired more than he had bargained for. Held: The appeal succeeded, but only in part. The land charges search carried out by the purchaser was not sufficient to entitle him to take free from the covenants, and not to order rectification would give the purchaser a windfall.
1 Cites
1 Citers
Â
Dougbar Properties Ltd v Keeper of the Registers of Scotland 1999 SC 513; [1999] ScotCS 43
9 Feb 1999
SCS
Lord Macfadyen
Scotland, Registered Land
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 certain circumstances a unilateral error by the Keeper could be the subject of rectification.
Land Registration (Scotland) Act 1979
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
Â
 Alan Wibberley Building Ltd v Insley; HL 24-Mar-1999 - Times, 30 April 1999; Gazette, 26 May 1999; [1999] UKHL 15; [1999] 1 WLR 894; [1999] 24 EG 160; [1999] NPC 54; (1999) 78 P & CR D19; (1999) 78 P & CR 327; [1999] EG 66; [1999] 2 EGLR 89; [1999] 2 All ER 897
Â
Sukhjinder Kaur v Balbir Singh and others [1999] ScotCS 158; 1999 S C 180
23 Jun 1999
OHCS
Lord Macfadyen
Scotland, Registered Land
The case dealt with the nature of the possession referred to in the section. "possession" under the section was a "tie breaker" used to identify who should suffer, or what remedy should be available. The court envisaged that a corporate body, as opposed to a natural person, might be in "possession", in terms of the provision. There were acknowledged to be unresolved issues regarding the degree of "possession" required in terms of the enactment.
Land Registration (Scotland) Act 1979
[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
Â
 Goodger and Goodger v Willis and Watts; CA 15-Jul-1999 - [1999] EWCA Civ 1859
Â
Oceanic Village Ltd v United Attractions Ltd, Shirayama Times, 19 January 2000; [2000] 1 All ER 975; [2000] Ch 234
9 Dec 1999
ChD
Neuberger J
Landlord and Tenant, Registered Land
The tenant sought an injunction against its neighbour and landlord to prevent it letting an adjoining property without a restriction similar to the one in its own lease. The claimants sought reassurance from the defendant tenants of the adjoining propery that they would act in accordance with the retriction, but no re-assurance was given. Held: The claimants were prevented under the 1925 Act from registering a notice, and the defendants took the lease with notice of the restriction. However, the words 'any demised premises' in the 1995 Act referred to the premises demised by the particular lease in question, and not to any other premises demised by the landlord. Having granted a lease of part to the claimant covenanting not to allow any other part to be used as a gift shop, the landlord demised another part to the first defendant without incorporating a similar restriction. The landlords were not to be injuncted not to do something which they would not themselves be doing, but which would be done by another tenant. No notice was registerable.
Neuberger J: "In my judgment, while it is right to take into account the fact that the draftsman of the lease has departed from, or has omitted part of, a well-established form of words, that will not, at least on its own, normally be a sufficient reason for not giving the words he has used the natural meaning which they would otherwise bear. The fact that the draftsman has used a different form of words in relation to two provisions of a lease concerned with the same concept, in this case the use to which land is not to be put, is also something which should be taken into account when construing either of those provisions, but, again, I do not consider that it should normally justify departing from the natural meaning of either provision.
While it is appropriate for the court to contrast a provision which falls to be construed with a well-established form of words or with the way in which another provision in the lease is drafted, it is also right for the court to bear in mind the way that leases are drafted in practice. It is well known that draftsmen of leases will frequently use many expressions where one will do - see eg per Hoffmann J in Norwich Union Life Insurance Society v British Railways Board [1987] 2 EGLR 137 at 138 and in Tea Trade Properties Ltd v CIN Properties Ltd [1990] 1 EGLR 155 at 158. Furthermore, draftsmen may take the wording of different clauses from different precedents and different clauses may come from different hands."
Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 3(5) - Land Registration Act 1925 50(1)
1 Cites
1 Citers
Â
