Flashcards in Enforcement of 3rd Party Interests against a Purchaser (registered) Deck (27)
Estates requiring Substantive Registration – s27 LRA 2002
• Transfers of a freehold or leasehold
• Grant of lease for more than 7 years
• Assignment of lease with more than 7 years to run
• First legal mortgage of freehold, or leasehold with
more than 7 years to run
• Landlord’s right of entry
• Express easement for a freehold or leasehold
LRA 2002, s28
All interests in registered land will be binding on a new owner of a registered estate, but this is heavily qualified by LRA 2002, s29(1) and (2).
LRA 2002, s29(2)
Holders of minor interests are required to protect their interest by entering a s32 notice on the charges register of the servient land in order to ensure that a buyer of that registered estate will be bound.
LRA 2002, s29(1)
Failure to protect your interest by entering a S32 notice means the new owner takes the land free from the minor interest.
LRA 2002, Sch 3
A new owner will not take the land free from the interest, even if it hasn’t been protected by a S32 notice, if it is deemed to be an overriding interest.
Interests protected by S32 Notice
Commercial equitable interests – rights designed to last a long time and bind servient land through successive owners.
o Equitable easements
o Restrictive covenants
o Estate contracts
Notices appropriate for the protection of commercial interests as they ensure a duly protected valid equitable interest will continue to bind the land through subsequent title holders.
Family equitable interests
Intrinsically moveable rights which the trustee can manage by buying and selling trust assets free from the beneficiary’s interest.
o Interests behind an express or implied trust
Not possible to protect a family equitable interest by S32 notice, because would mean the beneficiary could permanently fix his interest to the land which would conflict with the trustee’s fundamental right to manage the trust fund by selling the land free from the beneficiary’s interest.
Does entry of a S32 notice in the register automatically protect the interest?
Yes, but it does not mean interest in land is valid.
LRA 2002, s29(1)
If an interest is not correctly protected on the register, a purchaser for valuable consideration (includes buyer and lender) takes the land free from it, unless it takes effect as an overriding interest, even if he is aware of the interest.
De Lusignan v Johnson 
The buyer had express notice of an estate contract but nevertheless took it free from the interest as it had not been protected.
Wilkes v Spooner 
Once an interest is lost, it doesn’t reappear.
What is a restriction?
• Restrictions appear in the proprietorship register.
• Show that the proprietor is under some restriction
affecting his ability to deal with the property.
Unless the terms are complied with, the registrar
will not register the new owner of the property.
• Most commonly used to ensure family equitable
interests are overreached.
LRA 2002, s44
Where 2 or more persons are registered as the proprietor of an estate in land, the registrar is obliged to enter a restriction to alert the buyer of the need to overreach i.e. pay the purchase monies to at least 2 trustees.
What is overreaching?
Process where beneficial interests in land under a trust become detached from the land and transferred to the money paid by the buyer. Enables purchaser to take land free from those beneficial interests, irrespective of whether a restriction placed on register.
Only applies to beneficial interests behind a trust not to any other type of interest in land
Detaches the equitable interest from the land and transfers it into money
Money can be purchase money or mortgage loan
Money must be paid to at least 2 trustees/legal owners
Protects the buyer/lender who takes land free of beneficial interests
Protects the beneficiary as he still has interest in the sale proceeds
Applies to registered and unregistered land
Williams & Glyn’s Bank Ltd v Boland 
Husband held legal title to a house and re-mortgaged it to the bank. Wife was in occupation and had an equitable interest. The interest was not overreached because the money was only paid to the husband so one trustee. Therefore, the wife had an overriding interest and bank couldn’t take the house.
City of London Building Society v Flegg
Husband and wife, daughter and son-in-law all bought a house together. D&S re-mortgaged it to building society without telling H&W. H&W did have an equitable interest through contribution to the purchase but when loan money was paid during remortgaging, was paid to 2 trustees – D&S – and so the equitable interest was now in the mortgage money as opposed to the land. H&W did not have interest in the land and bank could take house free of interest.
• Interests which do not need to be registered to be
binding. List provided under Schedule 3 LRA 2002
o Legal leases for 7 years or fewer (para 1)
o Interests of people in actual occupation (para 2)
o Implied legal easements (para 3)
o Beneficiaries under an implied trust
o Equitable lessees
Schedule 3 LRA 2002 para 3
• Implied legal easements will be held to be overriding interests:
o If existence known to buyer, OR
o Obvious on reasonable inspection, OR
o Exercised within 1 year prior to disposition
Schedule 3 LRA 2002 para 2
INTEREST IN LAND + ACTUAL OCCUPATION + CONDITIONS IN SCH 3 PARA 2 = OVERRIDING INTEREST
• Interest held by people in actual occupation of the land over which the interest exists will be overriding interests.
• Overriding unless (Schedule 3 para 2)
o not disclosed by interest holder on enquiry
o Belongs to a person whose occupation would not have been obvious on reasonable inspection of the land and purchaser has no actual knowledge of the interest.
Webb v Pollmount 
There does not need to be any causal connection between the right protected and the occupation that provides the protection. An option to purchase freehold included in a lease was held to be an overriding interest when challenged by the successor in title.
Lloyd’s Bank v Carrick 
There is an absence of the safety net if the land is unregistered. Widow’s estate contract was held void against the bank, despite being in occupation and no enquiry had been made of her.
Link Lending v Bustard 
Actual occupation held to be intention to return to the property, payment of outgoings and leaving your stuff there will be held to be actual occupation.
Defendant detained in a mental hospital but always intended to return to it. Paid bills, supervised visits.
Abbey National v Cann 
Don’t have to be there for actual occupation to be held. If possessions are there and have you have intention to return
Chhokar v Chhokar 
Don’t have to be physically present at time of sale. Actual occupation isn’t interrupted by holidays/business trips/hospital stays etc
Stockholm Finance Ltd v Garden Holdings Inc 
London flat of a Saudi princess – not been there in over a year, but had staff and possessions there