Tag: Registered Land

First National Bank Plc v Thompson: CA 25 Jul 1995

A charge executed before a purchase was ‘fed’ by a subsequent purchase and had priority. ‘Feeding the estoppel’ doctrine may apply to charges on registered land. The estoppel was fed by a later purchase without a clear recital of the title in the charge.

Citations:

Ind Summary 31-Jul-1995, Times 25-Jul-1995, Gazette 15-Sep-1995

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 1925

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Equity, Registered Land, Land

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.80559

Norfolk 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 subsequently acquiring title to the same land – estoppel perfecting grantor’s title – effect on subsequent purchaser

Citations:

[2011] EWLandRA 2010 – 0939

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.465872

Morris v Rae: SCS 5 Apr 2011

The complainer had purchased land from the defender, but the Keeper of the Registers refused to register the transfer, saying that the disponer was not the owner. The claim was for breach of warrandice.

Judges:

Lord Clarke

Citations:

[2011] ScotCS CSIH – 30, 2011 SCLR 428, 2011 SLT 701, 2011 GWD 13-305, [2011] CSIH 30

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Clark v Lindale Homes Limited SCS 1994
The court set out the conditions to found a claim for breach of warrandice on a land purchase: ‘Although eviction did not mean physical removal, it did involve the emergence of a real or threatened burden on the property which had to come from a . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Morris v Rae SC 7-Nov-2012
The pursuer had bought land from the responder which in turn had bought from a company now in liquidation. On application for registration, the Keepr of the registers said the title had not been made out, and he was unable to complete the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Registered Land

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.431766

Meldale Limited v Ludgershall Parish Council (Easements): LRA 27 Sep 2007

LRA 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

Citations:

[2007] EWLandRA 2005 – 2006

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.429573

Fatemi-Ardakani v Taheri, Fatemi-Ardakani (Deeds : Powers of Attorney): LRA 18 Sep 2007

LRA Validity of transfer – whether donee of power of attorney can sign a deed in his own name – authority required – whether transfer must indicate that he is so signing – effect of failure to comply with Rule 82 of the Land Registration Rules 2003 – Powers of Attorney Act 1971 ss 7 and 10 – Frontin v Small (1790 2 Lord Raym 1417, White v Cuyler (1795) 6 T.R 176, Wilkes v Back (1802) 2 East 142, Combes’ Case (1613) 9 Co. Rep 75a

Citations:

[2007] EWLandRA 2006 – 1313

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.429574

Arnold and Arnold v Roughton Land Trust Musker and Musker, (Practice and Procedure): LRA 5 Nov 2007

LRA Adverse possession – locus standi of a person not having an interest in the land – adding new parties – holding a substantive hearing in absence of a party – Limitation Act 1980 Section 15; Schedule 1, paragraphs 1 and 8 – Land Registration Act 2002 Schedule 4; Adjudicator to Her Majesty’s Land Registry (Practice and Procedure) Rules 2003 Rule 2; Rule 24 (1)(a); Part 5, Rule 33(1); Rule 38; Rule 38(1)(a)(i);

Citations:

[2007] EWLandRA 2006 – 0865

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.429577

London Borough of Wandsworth v Rapose, Rapose, Rapose, De Souza, Rapose, Gracias, Haq, Scullion: LRA 1 Apr 2008

Compulsory purchase

Citations:

[2008] EWLandRA 2007 – 0167

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981 3 4 5 6 9, Acquisition of Land Act 1981 5 11 12 13A 15 23, Compulsory Purchase of Land (Vesting Declarations) Regulations 1990, Compulsory Purchase by Non-Ministerial Acquiring Authorities (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1990, Adjudicator to HM Land Registry (Practice and Procedure) Rules 2003 31, Land Registration Act 2002 3 4(1)(a)(i) 29(2)(a)(ii) 30(2)(a)(ii)

Registered Land

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.429593

Rees v The National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or National Beauty: LRA 5 Mar 2007

Boundary Dispute

Citations:

[2007] EWLandRA 2005 – 1838

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Stephenson and Another v Johnson and Another CA 12-Jul-2000
There had been a dispute as to the correct boundary between two properties in North Yorkshire. The land had been in common ownership until 1973. The 1973 conveyance showed the boundary in a position which the claimants said was determinative. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.429564

Bank of Scotland Plc v King and others: ChD 23 Nov 2007

The parties contracted to buy and sell a property. The lending bank sought possession, saying that it had advanced the money which had been spent acquirng the property. The defendant purchasers said that completion had not taken place, the full price had not been paid, possession had not been given, and the parties had agreed to rescission.
Held: An executed transfer had been delivered. That delivery had not been explicitly in escrow, but the full purchase price had not been paid. The possibility that a vendor’s lien could apply ‘shows that it is perfectly possible in law for a vendor to complete a transfer unconditionally, even where part of the purchase price has not been paid.’ In this case the document had not been delivered in escrow.
The vendors were to be taken to have consented to their vendors’ lien being subordinated to the interests of the claimants. The Bank was entitled to register its charge.

Judges:

Morgan J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 2747 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 1(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Bowker v Burdekin 1843
Parke B considered how a court identified whether a document had been delivered in escrow: ‘you are to look at all the facts attending the execution, to all that took place at the time, and to the result of the transaction; and therefore, though it . .
Cited – Thompson v McCullough CA 1947
Thompson had agreed to buy a tenanted property, had paid part of the purchase price, and had received a conveyance in escrow pending payment of the balance. He at that point gave McCullough notice to quit. Two months later Thompson paid the balance . .
Qualified – Watkins v Nash 1875
The instrument at issue was delivered to the solicitor acting for the party intended to benefit under it. It was claimed that it was delivered in escrow.
Held: On the detailed facts the delivery was not intended to be a delivery to the . .
Qualified – London Freehold and Leasehold Property Company v Suffield 1897
Where an instrument is delivered to the party who is to benefit under the instrument, any oral statement that the delivery is not an absolute delivery of the deed is of no effect. Where several persons are parties to a deed as grantees and one of . .
Cited – William Cory and Son Limited v Inland Revenue Commissioners CA 1964
Lord Denning MR discussed what was meant by delivery of a document in escrow: ‘When an instrument is delivered in escrow, that only means that it is delivered on condition (which may be expressed or implied by conduct) that it is not to be operative . .
Cited – Bentray Investments Limited v Venner Time Switches Limited ChD 1985
Stuart-Smith J discussed the circumstances under which a deed was said to have been delivered in escrow: ‘the passages to which I have referred seem to establish that the intention of the maker must be made clear, at least where the deed is . .
Cited – Kettlewell v Watson 1884
A vendor’s lien was postponed to the equitable interest of a third party with whom the purchaser from the vendor had had dealings. . .
Cited – Barclays 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land, Contract

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.261500

Allen 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. As such it was an admission of title. The requirement that the possession be adverse requires only that the possession was not pursuant to a licence, whether express or implied, from the owner. This is because possession is not adverse if it is enjoyed under a legal title. Whether a person with limited permission to use or occupy land might rely on more extensive activity to claim adverse possession is a question of fact turning on the circumstances of the case.

Judges:

Ward LJ, Moore-Bick LJ, Lawrence Collins LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 216

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 15

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – 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. . .
Cited – Richardson v Younger 1871
When there are two joint claimants to possessory title, and it is said that they had acknowledged the paper owner’s title, the acknowledgment must be given by or on behalf of both of them. . .
Cited – Edginton 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, . .
Cited – Asbury v Asbury 1898
A defendant to a claim for adverse possession made by two joint claimants, and who asserts an acknowledgement of his title must show that the acknowledgement was by both claimants. . .
Cited – J 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 . .
Cited – Buckinghamshire 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 . .
Cited – Powell v McFarlane ChD 1977
Intention to Establish Adverse Possession of Land
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: ‘It will be convenient to begin by . .
Cited – Riyad Bank and others v Ahli United Bank (Uk) Plc CA 23-Nov-2005
A renewed application for leave to appeal was made as regards a valuation element of the judgment. New expert evidence was sought to be admitted.
Held: Leave was refused: ‘the Court of Appeal should be particularly cautious where what is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land, Limitation

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.249954

Generay Ltd v Containerised Storage Company Ltd: CA 23 Mar 2005

Judges:

Peter Gibson, Neuberger LJJ, Sir Martin Nourse

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 478

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Chambers v London Borough of Havering CA 20-Dec-2011
The defendant appealed against an order for him to surrender possession of land he had claimed by adverse possession. The Council was the registered proprietor. The defendant said he had used the land since 1981 for dumping of motor vehicle parts. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land, Limitation

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.224775

Morris and Others v Godiva Mortgages Limited and Another (Charges and Charging Orders : Fraud, Forgery and Undue Influence/Duress): LRA 11 Jan 2016

LRA Sale and lease back of their home by the applicants to the second respondent – the applicants allege that the transfer and the lease are a nullity as they were forged on behalf of the second respondent – alternatively, the applicants allege that the transfer and the lease should be set aside as they were induced to enter into them by a fraudulent representation made on behalf of the second respondent.

Citations:

[2016] EWLandRA 2012 – 0953

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.564460

Cyril Baker Properties Ltd v Tyler Properties Ltd: LRA 31 Mar 2016

LRA Alteration of the register – Land Registration Act 2002 Schedule 4 paragraph 5 – Sale pursuant to an order for sale obtained following default judgment – default judgment set aside but order for sale not set aside or appealed

Citations:

[2016] EWLandRA 2014 – 0645

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.564461

Valentine v Allen and others: CA 4 Jul 2003

There was a claim in trespass arising from mistakes arising on the setting up of a small residential development. An easement necessary to the enjoyment of the plots sold off, was required over land no longer owned by the grantor at the time of the apparent grant.
Held: The circumstances were not such as to allow an equitable easement to arise, and nor by any estoppel. He had stood by while, for example a garage had been built across the path of the purported easement. Appeal dismissed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lord Justice Chadwick And Lady Justice Hale

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 915

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Amalgamated Investment and Property Co Ltd (in Liq) v Texas Commerce International Bank Ltd CA 1982
The court explained the nature of an estoppel by convention.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘The doctrine of estoppel is one of the most flexible and useful in the armoury of the law. But it has become overloaded with cases. That is why I have not gone . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.184265

Rodney District Council and others v Attorney General: PC 7 Oct 2002

(New Zealand) The appeal concerned the rating of properties. Where two properties were held under the same land certificates, was this enough to have require only one listing on the valuation roll. New Zealand uses the Torrens style of Land Registration, under which, it was argued, the unit of registration determined also entries for ‘separate properties’. This has its origin in Scots law. The authorities contended that the test was rather the unit of occupation.
Held: The expression ‘separate property’ was not defined. It was to be interpreted within the context in which it was used. In this case that meant rating, not land law, and it was dangerous to bring forward meanings for wordings from earlier statutes. Separate occupation was the correct criterion.

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough

Citations:

[2002]UKPC 47, [2003] RA 180

Links:

Bailii, PC

Statutes:

Rating Valuations Act 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Rating, Registered Land

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.177998

Oceanic Village Ltd v United Attractions Ltd, Shirayama: ChD 9 Dec 1999

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.’

Judges:

Neuberger J

Citations:

Times 19-Jan-2000, [2000] 1 All ER 975, [2000] Ch 234

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 3(5), Land Registration Act 1925 50(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Darstone Ltd v Cleveland Petroleum Co Ltd 1969
. .
Cited – Norwich Union Life Insurance v British Railways Board 1987
The court made reference to the ‘torrential style of drafting which has been traditional for many years’ among draftsmen of covenants in leases. ‘The use of ordinary language to convey meaning often involves subtle discriminations which for most . .
Cited – Tea Trade Properties Ltd v CIN Properties Ltd ChD 1990
It is not unusual for conveyances to say the same thing twice: ‘… I have never found the presumption against superfluous language particularly useful in the construction of leases. The draftsmen traditionally employ linguistic overkill and try to . .

Cited by:

Cited – Morrells of Oxford Ltd v Oxford United Football Club Ltd and Others CA 21-Jul-2000
A covenant on the sale of land for a public house provided that the vendor should not permit the building of licensed premises within half a mile.
Held: The covenant operated personally only. The covenants which might be implied by the section . .
Cited – Ranson v Ranson CA 13-Dec-2001
There had been protracted ancillary relief litigation between the parties resulting in a final order. Part of the order related to property, but the husband asserted that he was incapable of conveying the property since, because of title . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Registered Land

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.84420

Overseas Investment Services Ltd v Simcobuild Construction Ltd and Another: ChD 2 Nov 1993

A section 38 agreement was an overriding interest, and created a public right which was binding on purchaser.

Citations:

Times 02-Nov-1993

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 1925 70(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Overseas Investment Services Ltd v Simcobuild Construction Ltd and Another CA 21-Apr-1995
Grant of s38 rights in a Highways agreement didn’t operate as grant of future public rights of way, nor create an overriding interest. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.84498

Central London Commercial Estates Ltd v Kato Kagaku Ltd and Another, Axa Equity and Law Assurance Society Plc (Third Party): ChD 15 Jul 1998

Where a squatter had acquired adverse possession rights against lessee, but had not yet applied for registration, a surrender of the registered leasehold did not defeat his claim but operated as acquisition of lessee’s rights.
The court was asked ‘whether, after more than 12 years’ adverse possession by a trespasser, the registered leaseholder of land can, by surrendering the remainder of his term to the freeholder, give the latter a right to immediate possession against the erstwhile squatter. In relation to unregistered land the answer, on House of Lords’ authority, is yes. The issue is whether the provisions of the Land Registration Act 1925, centrally section 75, produce a different outcome in registered conveyancing.’
Held: Where a squatter had acquired adverse possession rights against lessee, but had not yet applied for registration, a surrender of the registered leasehold did not defeat his claim but operated as acquisition of lessee’s rights.

Judges:

Sedley J

Citations:

Times 27-Jul-1998, Gazette 22-Jul-1998, Gazette 30-Sep-1998, [1998] EWHC Ch 314, [1998] EGCS 117, [1998] 4 All ER 948, [1998] 3 EGLR 55, [1998] 46 EG 185

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 1925 7(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78953

Chancery Plc v Ketteringham: ChD 27 Oct 1993

Where a charge had been registered with priority over a caution with the consent of the cautioner, the registered charge has priority over the caution, and the proprietor of the charge can sell the land free of the cautioner’s rights.

Citations:

Times 25-Nov-1993, Independent 27-Oct-1993

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 1925 54

Registered Land

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.78973

Collings v Lee: CA 2001

The claimants asked the defendant to find a purchaser for their house for a fee. Pretending to be a purchaser under an assumed name, he obtained from them the documents necessary to register the transfer, and received a further payment towards the deposit on a new house. He was registered as proprietor, and obtained a substantial advance on a first charge to a building society. He was later convicted of fraud. C, still in possession, received no money for the sale of their house, and none of the other payments was returned. In a dispute between the Collings and the Building Society, the issue was whether their interest was ‘an overriding interest’ as that of a ‘person in actual occupation’. The Society, relying on Lonrho and Twinsectra argued, ‘ . . that the transfer of the property to the first defendant was not void, but voidable by Mr and Mrs Collings; that unless and until they avoided it they had no subsisting equitable interest in the property, their right to avoid it being a ‘mere equity’; and that such a right does not fall within s 70(1)(g).’
Held: The argument was rejected: ‘The rationale of the principle, as it applies to a transfer of property, is that even where the transfer is obtained by fraudulent misrepresentation, the transferor nevertheless intends that the whole legal and beneficial ownership in the property shall pass to the transferee. But that was not this case. Mr and Mrs Collings did not intend to transfer the property to the first defendant and they did not intend to transfer it for no consideration. The first defendant acquired the property without their knowledge and consent and in breach of his fiduciary duty to them. The equitable interest remained vested in Mr and Mrs Collings.’

Judges:

Nourse LJ

Citations:

[2001] 2 All ER

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 1925 70)1)(g)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.188812

Brown and Root v Sun Alliance: CA 2001

Until there has been a transfer in accordance with the provisions of the Land Registration Act the legal title to the estate remains with the vendor

Citations:

[2001] Chancery Ch 733

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Brown and Root Technology Ltd and Another v Sun Alliance and London Assurance Comp Ltd CA 19-Dec-1996
The claimant had a personal right to exercise a break clause in a lease of which it was the registered proprietor, that right coming to an end when it assigned the lease. The lease was assigned to another company within the group which took over . .

Cited by:

Cited – Catlin Estates Ltd and Another v Carter Jonas (A Firm) TCC 31-Oct-2005
The defendants had been employed to manage a building project which it was said went wrong. The court had to consider several different factual claims. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.242992

NRAM Ltd v Evans and Others: CA 19 Jul 2017

Appeal from order directing re-registration of charge over registered land.
Held: It was not a mistake to register a voidable disposition before it was avoided.
The court cited with approval the views of the editors of Megarry and Wade: ‘ ‘Mistake’ is not itself specifically defined in the 2002 Act, but it is suggested that there will be a mistake whenever the Registrar (i) makes an entry in the register that he would not have made; (ii) makes an entry in the register that he would not have made in the form in which it was made; (iii) fails to make an entry in the register which he would otherwise have made; or (iv) deletes an entry which he would not have deleted; had he known the true state of affairs at the time of the entry or deletion. The mistake may consist of a mistaken entry in the register or the mistaken omission of an entry which should have been made. Whether an entry in the register is mistaken depends upon its effect at the time of registration . . . ‘

Judges:

Kitchin, David Richards, Henderson LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 1013, [2017] WLR(D) 491

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.591188

Clark 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 registration of a charge is not to be defeated by a minor error – compensation payable. The 1925 Act is an Act of exceptionally low quality.

Judges:

Ferris J

Citations:

Gazette 02-Dec-1992, [1994] Ch 370, [1992] EWHC 1 (Ch), [1993] 2 All ER 936, [1993] Fam Law 579, [1993] 2 FLR 500, (1993) 65 P and CR 186, [1993] 2 WLR 141

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 1925 75, Land Registration Rules 1925 218, Charging Orders Act 1979 2(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Irani Finance Ltd v Singh CA 1970
Two brothers had acquired land as joint tenants with the aid of a mortgage. Distinct orders were made against each of them charging their respective interests in the land. The mortgagee assigned the mortgage. The brothers held under a trust for . .
Cited – Parkash 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.
Cited – National Westminster Bank Ltd v Allen ChD 1971
The defendants, a husband and wife, were jointly and severally liable on two joint accounts which were overdrawn. The defendants were joint owners of a house property as joint tenants holding on trust for sale. The plaintiff was seeking a charging . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Clark 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. . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.79180

Best v The Chief Land Registrar and Another: Admn 7 May 2014

The court was asked whether the criminalising of trespass to land in the 2012 Act had altered the running of time in applications for registration of title to land by adverse possession.

Judges:

Ouseley J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 1370 (Admin), [2014] WLR(D) 211

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, Land Registration Act 2002

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.525071

Arnold v Mann, Mann, Daniel, Daniel, Brooks, Quittelier, Scanlan: LRA 22 Mar 2018

Adverse possession claim in respect of one end of a service road, which was then unregistered land and not highway. Held that the Applicant had failed to demonstrate factual possession prior to resurfacing and effective enclosure in 2016. Previous acts were equivocal and almost all consistent with exercise of rights of way and parking. The acts were also insufficiently overt and did not demonstrate the necessary intention to possess.

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 210 (PC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.616310

Baker and Another v Craggs: CA 16 May 2018

‘The novel issue raised by this appeal is whether the doctrine of overreaching in section 2(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (‘LPA 1925′) is capable of operating in circumstances where the conveyance to a purchaser which is alleged to have the overreaching effect is the grant of an easement over land, and the equitable interest which is said to be overreached is not an interest in the easement itself, or even in the land conveyed to the purchaser with the benefit of the easement, but an interest in the servient tenement which the common vendor has previously contracted to sell to a third party, and which (following completion of that sale) the vendor holds as a bare trustee for the third party pending registration of his title with HM Land Registry.’

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 1126, [2018] WLR(D) 299

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 2(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land, Land

Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.616320

Flowers v The Chief Land Registrar and Thorpe Estates Limited: UTTC 30 Apr 2018

LAND REGISTRATION – Land Registration Act 2002, section 108(2) – application to First-tier Tribunal to set aside a deed purporting to cancel restrictive covenants and to impose fresh covenants – applicant not a party to the deed – First-tier Tribunal held that applicant did not have standing to apply to set aside the deed – appeal to Upper Tribunal dismissed – when appropriate to make appellant pay the costs of two respondents – summary assessment of costs

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 145 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 2002 108(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 14 April 2022; Ref: scu.609720

Smith v Express Dairy Limited: ChD 1954

Express Dairy (as registered owner) let a shop to Smith, but then transferred its interest to a subsidiary company. The subsidiary did not become registered as owner but nonetheless served notice to quit on Smith.
Held: Unless the subsidiary could be treated as having given notice to quit as agent of Express Dairy the notice to quit was bad, because the reversion remained vested in Express Dairy.

Judges:

Harman J

Citations:

[1954] JPL 45

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Stodday Land Ltd and Another v Pye ChD 7-Oct-2016
The agricultural landlord sold part of his land subject to the respondent’s tenancy to the appellant. Before the transfer was registered, notices to quit were served by both the landlord and his buyer. The tenant challenged both notices in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Registered Land

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.570350

Elias v Mitchell: 1972

A caution against dealings can only be registered to protect some form of interest in land

Citations:

[1972] Ch 652

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Kastner v Jason, Sherman, Sherman and Sherman, Sherman and Kastner ChD 23-Mar-2004
The parties had a dispute arbitrated by the Beth Din, who ordered the sale of a property. In apparent breach of that order the owner purported to sell the property. The claimant had registered a caution which the defendants now sought to be vacated. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.196026

Paige v Webb: CA 26 Jul 2001

The claimant sought rescission of a consent order for specific performance made in an earlier action. The purchasers had not complied simply with the order, but had sought to bring back certain parts of the original contract.
Held: Once an order for specific performance has been made, the matter of how the contract is to be performed lies with the court, not the parties. The consent order itself referred back to the contract, and the remaining conditions still applied. The consent order should not be rescinded on these grounds. The seller had refused to complete without delivering a deed of rectification, nevertheless that would not in the circumstances pose any practical problem.

Judges:

Lord Justice Laws, Lord Justice Mummery, Sir Anthony Evans

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1220

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 1925 110(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Singh v Nazeer 1979
Once an order for specific performance has been made by the court, the parties have put it into the hands of the court as to how the contract is to be carried out. The provisions of the order regulate how the contract is to be carried out. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Contract, Litigation Practice, Registered Land

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.159907

Overseas Investment Services Ltd v Simcobuild Construction Ltd and Another: CA 21 Apr 1995

Grant of s38 rights in a Highways agreement didn’t operate as grant of future public rights of way, nor create an overriding interest.

Citations:

Ind Summary 12-Jun-1995, Times 21-Apr-1995

Statutes:

Highways Act 1980 38(3)(b), Land Registration Act 1925 70(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Overseas Investment Services Ltd v Simcobuild Construction Ltd and Another ChD 2-Nov-1993
A section 38 agreement was an overriding interest, and created a public right which was binding on purchaser. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Registered Land

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84497

Mohammed Khurshid Khan: SSC 9 Mar 1994

A notice of deposit which had been lodged at the Land Registry was capable of being an encumbrance on the land for benefits law purposes, despite it not being a formal charge on the land under land law. Capital disregard is for fixed period, the onus to justify discharge lay on Adjudication Officer.

Citations:

Gazette 09-Mar-1994, CIS/255/89

Benefits, Registered Land

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83792

Al-Haddad, and Al-Haddad v Bandheri, and Bandheri: LRA 21 Dec 2017

Adverse Possession : Land Subject To Private or Public Rights of Way – Application to close possessory title to alleyway between two properties. Both parties had an express right of way over the alleyway on foot only. The alleyway was unregistered land and paper owner was not known. Held that the Respondents had fully enclosed the alleyway with locked gates at either end for well over 12 years prior to their registration with possessory title. The alleyway had been incorporated fully into their garden and was used as a flower bed. The fact that the Respondents had an express right of way over the alleyway did not prevent them from acquiring title, but their title is subject to the Applicant’s right to use the alleyway.

Citations:

[2017] EWLandRA 2017 – 0108

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.605820

Bacchus v Maduro: LRA 21 Dec 2017

Beneficial Interests, Trusts and Restrictions : Severance
The Applicant bought a house together with the Respondent’s mother as joint tenants in 1966, and both lived in separate parts. They were not related nor were they in a relationship. Solicitors acting for Respondent and her mother purportedly sent a notice severing the tenancy in November 1995. This led to a restriction being placed on the title. A second notice was allegedly served by Respondent’s daughter in December 2003, when her mother was ill in hospital. Respondent’s died in March 2004. Applicant applied to remove the restriction and claimed that neither notice had been served. Held that both notices had been served in accordance with section 196(3) of the Law of Property Act 1925.

Citations:

[2017] EWLandRA 2017 – 0125

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land, Trusts

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.605824

Ellis v Meltzer: LRA 21 Dec 2017

Charges and Charging Orders : Subrogation – By oversight, on completion of a sale of a Property the solicitor (Applicant) failed to secure the discharge of one of 2 charges – balance of the completion monies (after redemption of the other mortgage) were paid to HM Revenue and Customs. After Respondent adjudged bankrupt. Applicant paid a sum equal to the monies paid to HMRC to the bank to secure the discharge of 2nd charge. Applicant then proved in the bankruptcy as an unsecured creditor and received a dividend of part of his debt. Applicant registered a unilateral notice against Respondent’s matrimonial home claiming to be subrogated to the rights of the bank, which held a charge against that property, to secure the balance. Held the unilateral notice be cancelled as the Tribunal was not satisfied that the enrichment Applicant relied upon was unjust and/or that subrogation was an appropriate remedy and because the Applicant had surrendered any claim to security by his proof in the bankruptcy.

Citations:

[2017] EWLandRA 2016 – 0692

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.605823