The 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 it forward instead in the High Court. The adjudicator had proceeded in any event, ordering the cancellation of their notice, which had asserted a prescriptive right of way.
Held: The Rules give no express answer to the question posed, beyond imposing a duty to resolve a matter justly. ‘When faced with the withdrawal by either party of his case, the adjudicator will be called upon to make a ‘decision’. That decision is either to be regarded as one made on the reference itself. Alternatively, it will be one made on a ‘substantive issue’ arising in it – namely as to what is to happen to the reference in the light of the withdrawal. The fact that any such decision, let it be assumed, may be to the effect that the adjudicator decides to terminate the reference without ruling on the underlying merits of the issue before him does not mean that he is not making a decision. A decision not to decide a reference on its merits but to bring it to a final conclusion is, I consider, as much a decision on the reference as is a decision on the merits of the issue raised by the reference.’
‘A reference to an adjudicator of a ‘matter’ under section 73(7) confers jurisdiction upon the adjudicator to decide whether or not the application should succeed, a jurisdiction that includes the determination of the underlying merits of the claim that have provoked the making of the application. If the adjudicator does not choose to require the issue to be referred to the court for decision, he must determine it himself. In the case of an application under section 36 to which an objection has been raised, the relevant issue will be the underlying merits of the claim to register the unilateral notice. Neither party can by his unilateral act (including by his expressed withdrawal of his application, objection or case) bring the reference to an end. Equally, neither party can be compelled to advance a case to the adjudicator that he no longer wishes to advance. A party who conveys such a wish to the adjudicator can be regarded as conveying his wish to ‘withdraw’ his application, objection or case but it is then for the adjudicator to rule in his discretion as to how to deal with any such withdrawal.’ The adjudicator was correct to continue.

Mummery, Leveson, Rimer LJJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 801
Bailii
Land Registration Act 2002 32(1) 35 77 108, Land Registration Rules 2003 (SI 2003/1417) 85, The Adjudicator to Her Majesty’s Land Registry (Practice and Procedure) Rules 2003 (SI 2003 No. 2171) 2
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedBlackraven Developments Ltd v Sapphire (Harlow) Nominee Ltd, Sapphire (Harlow) (No 2) Nominee Ltd (Practice and Procedure) LRA 21-Dec-2007
Once an application or objection is withdrawn, the adjudicator’s jurisdiction on a reference (save in respect of costs) comes to an end as there is no longer a dispute upon which to adjudicate. . .
Appeal fromSilkstone 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 . .
CitedJayasinghe 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, Arbitration

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.441818