Registration – Essay Questions
The Mirror is cracked? yes, curtain principle, s33 LRA 2002 and
interests which override (Sched 3, paras 1, 2 & 3)
But the extent of the protection offered by interests which override,
especially beneficial interests in actual occupation, has been
considerably eroded, especially where there are banks involved
o Timing cases – Paddington BS, Cann & Scott
o Overreaching – Boland and Flegg
o Interests which override (Sched 3) were supposed to bring in
sensible flexibility & fairness into the LRA 2002? Have they
done so? Should they do so? In a battle between the LPA
provisions and LRA overriding provisions, which wins? (Lady
Hale and the dog).
Balancing (critically assess)
Does the land registration Act 2002 prioritise certainty over fairness?
Claim – No the LRA 2002 doesn’t prioritise certainty over fairness, there’s
a workable balance.
1. Mirror Principle
Registrable dispositions & minor interests. This is effective. Curtain
principle (s33) can be overcome by TR1/SO forms + restriction
(s44).
2. Overriding Interests for homes
Three types – this works well because of detail in sections & cases
for AO giving workable tests
3. Insurance/Indemnity these provisions work well enough
4. Overreaching this is where the problem lies and reform is needed to
make sure that LRA machinery can take effect.
Conclusion? All good, with exception of overreaching.
Problem question:
Have these people acquired interests and if so are their rights prioritised
over Lionel’s?
Hattie: lease for less than 7 years, so does not need to be
registered. Over 7 years must be registered. Not a registerable
disposition under s.27. This is a legal lease because parole rule
applies. Market rent. Does this interest take priority? Lionel is
buying the freehold so registerable disposition, s.29 because for
, value. He takes subject to those matters registered, and overriding
interests. Hattie’s lease is a legal lease so it can be overriding.
Ivor: four years. Parole rule will not apply. Not registerable because
under 7 years. No legal lease because not been done by deed, nor
has it been signed by a witness or parole rule, formalities not met.
At best an equitable lease. Will not be overriding under paragraph 1
which only applies to legal leases. Note: grant means you can
assume it was done by lease. You can protect an equitable lease by
notice, but nothing to suggest this has been done. He may have an
overriding interest as a person in actual occupation. Explore this
under para 2.
Janet: nothing to suggest the agreement was in the form of a deed.
Easements need to be done by deed if they are to be of legal effect.
Expressly created legal easements must be registered, even if this
had been done by deed, Janet’s failure to register it means it would
only be an equitable easement. EE do not take effect as overriding
interests under para 3 of schedule 3. The only easements that can
override are legal easements. Express easements must be
registered. Lionel’s interest will take priority and the gate can be
removed.
George and Kelvin – Proprietary estoppel. No award, the equity has
not been satisfied, Kelvin has an inchoate equity as he has not been
to court. Section 116 tells us that once PE arises, it is capable of
binding third parties. This means for the purposes of an interest of
someone in actual occupation, so Kelvin has an interest. Just need
to establish he is in actual occupation. Claim under schedule 3 para
2. Possibility that on sale his interest might be overreached.
Lecture 25 - Adverse possession:
Acquiring property by adverse possession: another method to
acquire property:
o Squatter’s rights – ability to obtain title through long term
possession. To the extent of ousting someone who already has
ownership. Through long-term occupation they lose their title
and you gain a new one.
The usurper at the outset does not have paper title. They can establish it
at the expense of someone who does.
The Mirror is cracked? yes, curtain principle, s33 LRA 2002 and
interests which override (Sched 3, paras 1, 2 & 3)
But the extent of the protection offered by interests which override,
especially beneficial interests in actual occupation, has been
considerably eroded, especially where there are banks involved
o Timing cases – Paddington BS, Cann & Scott
o Overreaching – Boland and Flegg
o Interests which override (Sched 3) were supposed to bring in
sensible flexibility & fairness into the LRA 2002? Have they
done so? Should they do so? In a battle between the LPA
provisions and LRA overriding provisions, which wins? (Lady
Hale and the dog).
Balancing (critically assess)
Does the land registration Act 2002 prioritise certainty over fairness?
Claim – No the LRA 2002 doesn’t prioritise certainty over fairness, there’s
a workable balance.
1. Mirror Principle
Registrable dispositions & minor interests. This is effective. Curtain
principle (s33) can be overcome by TR1/SO forms + restriction
(s44).
2. Overriding Interests for homes
Three types – this works well because of detail in sections & cases
for AO giving workable tests
3. Insurance/Indemnity these provisions work well enough
4. Overreaching this is where the problem lies and reform is needed to
make sure that LRA machinery can take effect.
Conclusion? All good, with exception of overreaching.
Problem question:
Have these people acquired interests and if so are their rights prioritised
over Lionel’s?
Hattie: lease for less than 7 years, so does not need to be
registered. Over 7 years must be registered. Not a registerable
disposition under s.27. This is a legal lease because parole rule
applies. Market rent. Does this interest take priority? Lionel is
buying the freehold so registerable disposition, s.29 because for
, value. He takes subject to those matters registered, and overriding
interests. Hattie’s lease is a legal lease so it can be overriding.
Ivor: four years. Parole rule will not apply. Not registerable because
under 7 years. No legal lease because not been done by deed, nor
has it been signed by a witness or parole rule, formalities not met.
At best an equitable lease. Will not be overriding under paragraph 1
which only applies to legal leases. Note: grant means you can
assume it was done by lease. You can protect an equitable lease by
notice, but nothing to suggest this has been done. He may have an
overriding interest as a person in actual occupation. Explore this
under para 2.
Janet: nothing to suggest the agreement was in the form of a deed.
Easements need to be done by deed if they are to be of legal effect.
Expressly created legal easements must be registered, even if this
had been done by deed, Janet’s failure to register it means it would
only be an equitable easement. EE do not take effect as overriding
interests under para 3 of schedule 3. The only easements that can
override are legal easements. Express easements must be
registered. Lionel’s interest will take priority and the gate can be
removed.
George and Kelvin – Proprietary estoppel. No award, the equity has
not been satisfied, Kelvin has an inchoate equity as he has not been
to court. Section 116 tells us that once PE arises, it is capable of
binding third parties. This means for the purposes of an interest of
someone in actual occupation, so Kelvin has an interest. Just need
to establish he is in actual occupation. Claim under schedule 3 para
2. Possibility that on sale his interest might be overreached.
Lecture 25 - Adverse possession:
Acquiring property by adverse possession: another method to
acquire property:
o Squatter’s rights – ability to obtain title through long term
possession. To the extent of ousting someone who already has
ownership. Through long-term occupation they lose their title
and you gain a new one.
The usurper at the outset does not have paper title. They can establish it
at the expense of someone who does.
