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