Registered Land
To what extent is it true that the title of registered land is an accurate reflection of proprietary
rights in the land?
Prior to 1925, land in the United Kingdom (UK) was largely unregistered and was only registered
on a voluntary basis. This changed with the introduction of the Land Registration Act 1925 (LRA
1925) whereby a centralised register system was introduced to encourage land registration,
though land remained largely unregistered. Subsequently, Land Registration Act 2002 (LRA
2002) was enacted following the Law Commission Report No. 271 (1998) to simplify and
modernise the law of land registration, and to ensure that the register would be a complete and
accurate reflection of the state of the land in order to allow for an efficient investigation upon
any land at any given time. As stated by renowned academic Martin Dixon, ‘there should be a
register to provide a very clear picture of the legal state of the land.’ As per the question, this
paper shall discuss to what extent it is true that the title of registered land accurately mirrors
the state of the land.
In order for the register to achieve an accurate reflection of the land, LRA 2002 significantly
reduced the scope of overriding interest. Interests that override are rights that bind the
purchaser automatically without appearing on the register. As such, they are seen as a flaw in
the land registration system i.e. ‘a crack in the mirror’. The Law Commission initially wanted to
abolish this category of rights though it was found that it was neither feasible nor desirable to
do so. The law on overriding interest has been reformed pursuant to s. 27 LRA 2002. For
instance, s. 27(2)(a) provides that transfer of a land is required to be registered; s. 27(2)(b)(i)
provides that leases over a period of 7 years must be registered; s. 27(2)(d) provides for the
registration of express easements; whilst s. 27(2)(f) provides for the registration of a legal
charge. S. 27(1) LRA 2002 itself laid down that any rights that have not been successfully
registered will not operate at law i.e. not protected by the statutes. This means that the right
can only take effect in equity which can be enforced against a purchaser under the overriding
interest.
On the other hand, other rights may be also protected by entering a notice under s. 34 LRA
2002, subject to the exceptions under s. 33 LRA 2002. An entry of notice would inform the
purchaser of the existence of the right. Entering a notice is not compulsory though it is highly
advisable. The fact that an interest is the subject of a notice does not necessarily mean that the
interest is valid, but if it is valid it will be protected against a purchaser of the registered estate.
Appropriately, many rights now appear on the register which has streamlined the process of
conveyancing. However, the LRA 2002 prohibits the entering of notices in regard to certain
rights to avoid the register from being cluttered with trivial rights, as per s. 33 LRA 2002, where
To what extent is it true that the title of registered land is an accurate reflection of proprietary
rights in the land?
Prior to 1925, land in the United Kingdom (UK) was largely unregistered and was only registered
on a voluntary basis. This changed with the introduction of the Land Registration Act 1925 (LRA
1925) whereby a centralised register system was introduced to encourage land registration,
though land remained largely unregistered. Subsequently, Land Registration Act 2002 (LRA
2002) was enacted following the Law Commission Report No. 271 (1998) to simplify and
modernise the law of land registration, and to ensure that the register would be a complete and
accurate reflection of the state of the land in order to allow for an efficient investigation upon
any land at any given time. As stated by renowned academic Martin Dixon, ‘there should be a
register to provide a very clear picture of the legal state of the land.’ As per the question, this
paper shall discuss to what extent it is true that the title of registered land accurately mirrors
the state of the land.
In order for the register to achieve an accurate reflection of the land, LRA 2002 significantly
reduced the scope of overriding interest. Interests that override are rights that bind the
purchaser automatically without appearing on the register. As such, they are seen as a flaw in
the land registration system i.e. ‘a crack in the mirror’. The Law Commission initially wanted to
abolish this category of rights though it was found that it was neither feasible nor desirable to
do so. The law on overriding interest has been reformed pursuant to s. 27 LRA 2002. For
instance, s. 27(2)(a) provides that transfer of a land is required to be registered; s. 27(2)(b)(i)
provides that leases over a period of 7 years must be registered; s. 27(2)(d) provides for the
registration of express easements; whilst s. 27(2)(f) provides for the registration of a legal
charge. S. 27(1) LRA 2002 itself laid down that any rights that have not been successfully
registered will not operate at law i.e. not protected by the statutes. This means that the right
can only take effect in equity which can be enforced against a purchaser under the overriding
interest.
On the other hand, other rights may be also protected by entering a notice under s. 34 LRA
2002, subject to the exceptions under s. 33 LRA 2002. An entry of notice would inform the
purchaser of the existence of the right. Entering a notice is not compulsory though it is highly
advisable. The fact that an interest is the subject of a notice does not necessarily mean that the
interest is valid, but if it is valid it will be protected against a purchaser of the registered estate.
Appropriately, many rights now appear on the register which has streamlined the process of
conveyancing. However, the LRA 2002 prohibits the entering of notices in regard to certain
rights to avoid the register from being cluttered with trivial rights, as per s. 33 LRA 2002, where
