Lecture 22 – Registration (2)
There will be a stand-alone registration question at exam.
What if there are mistakes in the registration?
There are procedures under the LRA 2002. Rules are alteration and rectification. LRA 2002
Schedule 4.
What do we mean by mistake? No definition in the act. See Gardner, of the opinion that
mistakes are a ‘tragic mess’. The Law Commission have suggested that this area needs
review.
Barclays Bank v Guy: Highlights the problems with mistakes:
Fraudster falsified documents and convinced the Land Registry that he should be
registered as proprietor of Guy’s estate.
Before this was corrected in the register, the fraudster borrowed £110m from
Barclays, secured on the land.
BUT remember, at the time of loan, the fraudster was on the legal title, so it was a
valid mortgage.
So, while Guy could have had the Register rectified, the Bank’s mortgage stood.
Highlights the difficulties where a mistake impacts upon two innocent parties with
conflicting interests
This case highlights the difficulties where we have two innocent parties.
The registration gap:
Gap between completion and registration. Even with good lawyer, likely to be at least a
week, usually more. Note that during this gap a purchaser of registered land only has an
equitable interest, the legal title remains with the vendor. There is a period between
‘completion’ and registration, so before the purchaser becomes the registered proprietor,
when s/he has only an equitable interest in the land. This is known as the ‘registration gap’
and it is a problem: adverse interests arising during this ‘gap’ may bind the purchaser. E-
conveyancing will do away with the registration gap.
Case: Stodday Land Limited & Ripway Properties:
Land is already registered. In the exam, do a timeline.
Registered freehold land was subject to Pye’s agricultural tenancy.
Part of the freehold land transferred to Ripway on 19 June 2013 but not registered
until 16 July 2013.
Ripway wanted to get Pye out, and served a notice to quit. This was done during the
‘registration gap’, on 1 July 2013.
, For the notice to work under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, Ripway had to be
legal owner, but, because they had not been registered, they were not legal owner, so
notice held invalid.
During ‘registration gap’, they were equitable owners only.
Case: Baker v Craggs
Mr and Mrs Charlton owned a large piece of land and sold off two portions of it.
Portion 1 was sold to Craggs on 17 January 2012, but the transfer was not registered
until May 2012.
In the registration gap, on 20 February, the Charltons (still legal owners of Portion 1
because of the delay in registering Craggs) sold Portion 2 to Mr and Mrs Baker,
mistakenly including a right of way over Portion 1.
Land Registry registered Craggs’ title to Portion 1 subject to the right of way in
favour of Portion 2, and Newey J held this correct: the right of way stood. They were
competent to grant a right of way over it. So, the right of way stands.
Priorities between competing interests:
Situation where two people are claiming inconsistent interests over the same piece of land.
Who’s interest takes priority?
‘Priority is a central concept in land law. Because English law allows for the
presence of so many enforceable interests in land, the law has had to develop
complex rules for regulating their priority, in other words for determining the order
in which interests in land are enforceable and which interests prevail over others.’
ULRA 2.56.
Very clear rules governing priority. Certain questions that need to be addressed:
(i) LRA priority rules - ss 28-30 LRA and
(ii) LRA’s separate rules about protection of ‘minor interests’ and ‘overriding
interests’, plus
iii) the rules on overreaching.
Remember: the mirror is not perfect. Not everything that binds a third party appears on the
register. Note categories ii and iii above.
Basic rule: Section 28(1) - Except as provided by sections 29 and 30, the priority of an
interest affecting a registered estate or charge is not affected by a disposition of the estate or
charge. So, earlier interests take priority over those created later.
Exception/special rule: Section 29. It disapplies section 28 but only on certain requirements.
I.e. we will apply different rules but only if: The disposition must be
for valuable consideration
A registrable disposition
Completed by registration
There will be a stand-alone registration question at exam.
What if there are mistakes in the registration?
There are procedures under the LRA 2002. Rules are alteration and rectification. LRA 2002
Schedule 4.
What do we mean by mistake? No definition in the act. See Gardner, of the opinion that
mistakes are a ‘tragic mess’. The Law Commission have suggested that this area needs
review.
Barclays Bank v Guy: Highlights the problems with mistakes:
Fraudster falsified documents and convinced the Land Registry that he should be
registered as proprietor of Guy’s estate.
Before this was corrected in the register, the fraudster borrowed £110m from
Barclays, secured on the land.
BUT remember, at the time of loan, the fraudster was on the legal title, so it was a
valid mortgage.
So, while Guy could have had the Register rectified, the Bank’s mortgage stood.
Highlights the difficulties where a mistake impacts upon two innocent parties with
conflicting interests
This case highlights the difficulties where we have two innocent parties.
The registration gap:
Gap between completion and registration. Even with good lawyer, likely to be at least a
week, usually more. Note that during this gap a purchaser of registered land only has an
equitable interest, the legal title remains with the vendor. There is a period between
‘completion’ and registration, so before the purchaser becomes the registered proprietor,
when s/he has only an equitable interest in the land. This is known as the ‘registration gap’
and it is a problem: adverse interests arising during this ‘gap’ may bind the purchaser. E-
conveyancing will do away with the registration gap.
Case: Stodday Land Limited & Ripway Properties:
Land is already registered. In the exam, do a timeline.
Registered freehold land was subject to Pye’s agricultural tenancy.
Part of the freehold land transferred to Ripway on 19 June 2013 but not registered
until 16 July 2013.
Ripway wanted to get Pye out, and served a notice to quit. This was done during the
‘registration gap’, on 1 July 2013.
, For the notice to work under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, Ripway had to be
legal owner, but, because they had not been registered, they were not legal owner, so
notice held invalid.
During ‘registration gap’, they were equitable owners only.
Case: Baker v Craggs
Mr and Mrs Charlton owned a large piece of land and sold off two portions of it.
Portion 1 was sold to Craggs on 17 January 2012, but the transfer was not registered
until May 2012.
In the registration gap, on 20 February, the Charltons (still legal owners of Portion 1
because of the delay in registering Craggs) sold Portion 2 to Mr and Mrs Baker,
mistakenly including a right of way over Portion 1.
Land Registry registered Craggs’ title to Portion 1 subject to the right of way in
favour of Portion 2, and Newey J held this correct: the right of way stood. They were
competent to grant a right of way over it. So, the right of way stands.
Priorities between competing interests:
Situation where two people are claiming inconsistent interests over the same piece of land.
Who’s interest takes priority?
‘Priority is a central concept in land law. Because English law allows for the
presence of so many enforceable interests in land, the law has had to develop
complex rules for regulating their priority, in other words for determining the order
in which interests in land are enforceable and which interests prevail over others.’
ULRA 2.56.
Very clear rules governing priority. Certain questions that need to be addressed:
(i) LRA priority rules - ss 28-30 LRA and
(ii) LRA’s separate rules about protection of ‘minor interests’ and ‘overriding
interests’, plus
iii) the rules on overreaching.
Remember: the mirror is not perfect. Not everything that binds a third party appears on the
register. Note categories ii and iii above.
Basic rule: Section 28(1) - Except as provided by sections 29 and 30, the priority of an
interest affecting a registered estate or charge is not affected by a disposition of the estate or
charge. So, earlier interests take priority over those created later.
Exception/special rule: Section 29. It disapplies section 28 but only on certain requirements.
I.e. we will apply different rules but only if: The disposition must be
for valuable consideration
A registrable disposition
Completed by registration
