Land Registration

Question 1

Principles of Land Registration

Answer 1

Mirror, curtain and Insurance principle

NOTE: already existed as a foundation underpinning the LRA 1925, can be said to have been introduced by the Torrens system (Sir Robert Torrens, fundamental in introducing registered land in Australia)

Question 2

LRA 2002 is a joint product of…

Answer 2

Land Registry and Law Comission

Question 3

Law Commission Consultation Paper in March 2016

Answer 3

The goal of simultaneous completion of transaction and registration through electronic means should not be pursued

Question 4

4 aims of LRA 2002

Answer 4

E-conveyancing goal in mind, it is transaction driven

1) get as many estates in land registered as possible
2) register all 3rd party rights on registry title of estate against which they are effective
3) limit number and effect of unregistered interests which override
4) if e-conveyancing: creation+transfer of most property rights ONLY through electronic entry on register

Question 5

LRA 2002: revolutionary or evolutionary?

Answer 5

Dixon: until e-conveyancing (when our understanding of proprietary rights might have to change) –> evolution not revolution to LRA 1925

Ian Clarke: unnecessary question as the changes introduced are profound and far-reaching either way

Question 6

“Title”

Answer 6

“We” are not a cadastral system, so we register title to land not land itself i.e. the estate, a right of ownership.

Thus, it is possible for one plot of land to have more than one title registered (freehold and leasehold)

Question 7

What is a registrable state (i.e. Estate that must be registered on its transfer/creation)?

Answer 7

Legal freehold or legal leasehold of OVER 7 YEARS duration.
–> some estates are excluded from being registrable titles for practical reasons (maybe too short to require the protection)

Question 8

LRA 2002, s. 4: Triggers for compulsory registration of previously unregistered titles

Answer 8

1) conveyance of unregistered freehold estate
2) transfer of existing lease > 7 years left to run
3) grant of a legal lease > 7 out of an unregistered freehold OR unregistered leasehold > 7 years (HERE, leasehold will be registered even if estate out of which it is carved is NOT)
4) creation of a first legal mortgage over unregistered freehold/unregistered leasehold > 7 left –> registration of BOTH mortgage and title over which it is created

Question 9

S. 58 LRA 2002

Answer 9

Title by registration NOT registration of title. A title that Land Registry investigated and guarantees - ensured by fact of registration itself NOT by documents sent for registration

Question 10

LRA 2002’s categorisation of 3rd party rights

Answer 10

1) those interests protected by registration to survive sale
2) those overreached, the 3rd party’s interest being converted into its monetary equivalent in the sale price
3) unregistered interests that override

Question 11

1 December 1990

Answer 11

All land in England and Wales became subject to compulsory first registration - nowadays roughly 85% registered

Question 12

Title in unregistered land

Answer 12

Title not registered but established by the title deeds of the particular property

Question 13

4 parts registered land falls into

Answer 13

1) registered titles
2) unregistered titles which override
3) registered protected interests
4) registrable charges (mortgages)

Question 14

Unregistered interests which override (overriding interests)

Answer 14

Automatic priority without having to be registered –> inherently proprietary (CAPABLE of binding) - legal and equitable

Question 15

Registrable charges

Answer 15

Essentially mortgages - registered to take effect as legal mortgages, otherwise they may be equitable

Question 16

What is overreaching?

Answer 16

Process whereby certain equitable rights (only those under a trust of land) which might otherwise have enjoyed protection though registration on occasion of sale to a purchaser for value are swept off the land and converted instead into the TRANSFER MONEY that has just been paid
Stack v Dowden: overreaching defeats overriding, exemplified in Baker v Craggs

Question 17

Craggs v Baker

Answer 17

THE REGISTRATION GAP LIVES! Abbey National v Cann and Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages appeared to have resolved it by equating execution of transfer to registration BUT Baker v Craggs said no.

ALSO: When overreaching occurs, a right that would have been protected against a purchaser ceases to be protected, irrespective of whether it also qualifies as an overriding interest

Question 18

The Mirror Principle

Answer 18

Suggests that the official copy of the register should accurately reflect reality: identity of owner and all other rights enjoyed by 3rd parties should be visible to potential buyer

Question 19

“The crack in the mirror”

Answer 19

Overriding, hidden interests - despite Mirror Principle it is still advisable and under Schs 1 and 3 of the LRA 2002 necessary to physically inspect the land

Question 20

Physical inspection of the land

Answer 20

The existence of overriding interests is not a mistake/distortion of Mirror Principle. It recognises that it is impractical/undesirable to make absolutely everything subject to express registration - transient rights (shot leases) or rights too important to be submitted to registration requirement (those benefitting the public interest)
Registration should not replace physical inspection!

Question 21

The Curtain Principle

Answer 21

Equitable interests in land should be hidden behind the “curtain of a special typeface trust” - purchaser only needs to concern themselves with the legal title (held by trustees) reflected on register.
No need to look behind curtain and worry about beneficiaries
BECAUSE equitable rights will be overreached if proper formalities of purchase observed (s. 2 and 27 LRA)

Question 22

Equitable interests in curtain principle

Answer 22

Cannot affect purchaser because of overreaching but aren’t completely destroyed: proprietary rights are transferred into equivalent share in money (just paid by purchaser) –> trustees hold money on trust for equitable owner

Question 23

Williams and Glyn’s Bank v Boland

Answer 23

Bank’s failure to look behind the curtain meant that its mortgage lost priority to the rights of the borrower’s widow (he was the sole legal owner/trustee, she was a beneficiary due to her contributions to purchase price)
Mirror principle fails when the preconditions for statutory overreaching aren’t met –> necessary to look behind the curtain

Question 24

Concept of alienability

Answer 24

Owner of a property should be able to sell without any hidden rights getting in the way of that sale

Question 25

Alteration to record an overriding interest

Answer 25

This is not a rectification because the registered proprietor has not suffered any loss because of the alteration - they were always bound by the overriding interest! Any losses are due to the purchase of a property with an existing interest!

Question 26

The Insurance Principle

Answer 26

The register is guaranteed by the State as accurate and capable of being rectified or altered I'd an error has been made (especially by the Land Registry!) Therefore: indemnity - compensation for losses due to such errors

Question 27

LRA 2002 - beneficiaries

Answer 27

LRA 2002 does not allow beneficiaries to place a notice on the register that will bind a buyer/prevent a sale. They may place a "restriction" on the register or attempt to invoke TOLATA BUT: this generally cannot prevent sale

Question 28

Schedule 4, paragraphs 2 and 5

Answer 28

The court (2) or the registrar (5) have jurisdiction to alter the register to: a) correct mistakes b) update register c) give effect to any estate, right or interest expected from the effect of registration (only applies where a registered proprietor was registered with a title less than absolute) d) remove superfluous entries

Question 29

Schedule 4, paragraph 3

Answer 29

Register cannot be altered against a proprietor in possession unless they have by fraud or carelessness caused/substantially contributed to the mistake or any other reason it would be unjust for the alteration not to be made

Question 30

Schedule 4, paragraph 1

Answer 30

Rectification: a type of alteration but specifically one involving the correction of a mistake AND prejudicially affecting the title of the registered proprietor

Question 31

Schedule 8

Answer 31

Register is guaranteed as accurate by the State so an indemnity is paid from the public purse to someone who a) suffers loss because rectification needs to be made b) suffers loss because rectification is refused c) when an official search has been completed by the Land Registry in error d) where there is an error on an Official Copy of the Register

Question 32

Schedule 8, paragraph 5

Answer 32

No indemnity is paid where the claimant has acted fraudulently or negligently

Question 33

Schedule 8, paragraph 6

Answer 33

The amount payable if rectification is ordered must not exceed the value of the lost interest at the time immediately before rectification of the register. The amount payable if rectification is refused must not exceed the value of loss of interest at the time the mistake was made.

Question 34

The Law Commission prior to LRA 2002: reforms

Answer 34

a) Introduction of compulsory registration since 1990 b) Register being an open public document that can be searched without the permission/knowledge of owner c) computerisation + online searches of register

Question 35

Ss. 91-93 LRA 2002

Answer 35

Provisions for e-conveyancing set down: allow for future statutory instrument to specify further details

Question 36

S. 93(2) LRA 2002

Answer 36

Once e-conveyancing has been fully introduced, transfers of land will only be effective through the same - failure to use e-conveyancing = failure to dispose of the land?

Question 37

Stages of conveyancing transaction

Answer 37

1. Exchange of contracts (legally binding, deposit of 10%, no change of ownership) 2. Completion (outstanding purchase funds paid, keys handed over) NOW the buyer must pay stamp duty land tax after which they are able to register. THEORETICALLY there can be a delay of up to 2 months until 3. Registration (buyer registered as owner, name appears on proprietorship section, full legal owner)

Question 38

The registration gap

Answer 38

THEORETICALLY delay of up to 2 months between completion and registration: technically seller is still legal owner holding property on trust for the buyer with only equitable title E-CONVEYANCE: intended to close gap as completion, payment of stamp duty and registration would all happen at the same time with the touch of a button

Question 39

The tripartite register

Answer 39

1. Property section 2. Proprietorship 3. Charges section

Question 40

Property section

Answer 40

Description, address, reference to title plan, type of estate It can also highlight legal easements

Question 41

Proprietorship section

Answer 41

Names legal owners, whether title is absolute, good leasehold, possessory or qualified May also contain restrictions under LRA 2002, s. 40, entered by trustees and/or beneficiaries which highlight the existence of a trust

Question 42

s. 71, LRA 2002

Answer 42

Duty (albeit without sanctions) for registered proprietor to disclose to the registrar any known overriding interests that may then be entered on the register

Question 43

Absolute title

Answer 43

Seemingly no other claims on land than interests entered on the register and possible overriding interests

Question 44

Good leasehold

Answer 44

Subject to any interests affecting the landlord's freehold | If landlord has registered absolute title --> tenant will be given absolute leasehold title

Question 45

Possessory title

Answer 45

Can be given by Registry if deeds are missing more common, if a squatter has successfully claimed adverse possession. Subject to all adverse interests, not just overriding and registered protected interests

Question 46

Qualified title

Answer 46

Rarely given, but may be given by Registry conditionally, where there is doubt over the ownership claim

Question 47

Charges section

Answer 47

Contains notices of what are technically known as "minor interests" (mortgages, covenants)

Question 48

Notices on register

Answer 48

The entry on the register secures priority as an interest once it has been established that the interest is valid in itself: establish first that interest exists! Register is about priority and protection of rights and NOT their substantive creation! 1. Proprietary right has been validly created 2. See if it has been protected

Question 49

S. 34 LRA 2002: agreed notices

Answer 49

The application to enter the interest has been made by the registered proprietor or where the registered proprietor has given consent to the applicant

Question 50

S. 35 LRA 2002: unilateral notices

Answer 50

Where the applicant asks the Registrar to enter an interest against the title of the registered proprietor consulting the owner. The registrar will then contact the proprietor to see whether the owner wishes to apply for cancellation of the notice

Question 51

S. 36, LRA 2002

Answer 51

The applicant has 15 days to respond to an application to cancel. No response --> cancellation

Question 52

Who can place restrictions in the proprietary section?

Answer 52

1) by a beneficiary under a trust of land 2) by a trustee in bankruptcy (to prevent a bankrupt from trying to sell their property) 3) by the holder of an option (to prevent owner from breaching the option contract) 4) Serious Organises Crime Agency: suspected that property has been purchased with drug money/money laundering about to take place

Question 53

Midland Bank v Green

Answer 53

The holder of an option to purchase estate contract can place a restriction in the proprietary section to prevent the owner from breaching the option contract

Question 54

Restriction by a beneficiary under a trust of land

Answer 54

Most usual form of restriction: no disposition of land without payment to at least 2 trustees (ss. 2 and 27 LRA 1925) HOWEVER: this only really sends out a warning to a prospective buyer that overreaching is necessary - it will not necessarily stop the sale from taking place!

Question 55

Ss. 2 and 27 LPA 1925

Answer 55

Overreaching - if the purchaser of a legal estate pays the purchaser price to at least 2 trustees (REMEMBER: there can be a maximum of 4) or to a trust corporation, the proprietary rights of the beneficiaries are swept away and replaced by a monetary interest

Question 56

HSBC v Dyche

Answer 56

Trustees have a duty to act in good faith but generally, if the purchase price/mortgage advance by lender is paid to at least 2 of them --> overreaching occurs on purchase/repossession

Question 57

City of London Building Society v Flegg

Answer 57

Even with an overriding interest, beneficial rights can be overreached provided that purchase money/mortgage advance is paid to at least 2 trustees - Couple bought "Bleak House", wife's parents, the Fleggs, contributed to purchase price with the understanding they'd live there as equitable owners --> their proprietary rights were overreached by lender who secured the 2 trustees' (couple) signatures

Question 58

Chun v Ho

Answer 58

Possible for the beneficiary who is in occupation and has not been overreached to invoke TOLATA 1996, s. 14: to ask for a further sale of the property or perhaps to partition it

Question 59

Different stipulations as to what will bind each grade of title

Answer 59

Apply ONLY to first registration, afterwards regardless of whether you have an absolute or qualified title - ss. 28 and 29 priority rules apply!

Question 60

Reversionary Lease

Answer 60

Lease of any length but which does not take effect for more than three months from the date of the grant of the lease --> triggers registration of property Restriction: void if the lease takes effect more than 21 years from the date of the instrument

Question 61

Sections 6 and 7 LRA 2002

Answer 61

Place obligation to register firmly in the hands of the new owner. Failure to register within two months will have the effect of creating a trust here the original owner will hold the property on trust for the purchaser

Question 62

Leases: 1925 vs. 2002

Answer 62

Under LRA 1925, leases of over 21 years needed to be registered, LRA 2002 reduced that to over 7 years s. 118 LRA 2002: provision that in the future this may be reduced to a lease of over 3 years - but this is not in force yet

Question 63

S. 27 LRA 2002: dispositions that must be registered, following first registration at s. 4

Answer 63

1) any transfer of land 2) grant of a lease > 7 years 3) reversionary lease 4) express legal easement 5) legal mortgage

Question 64

Section 28 LRA 2002

Answer 64

Priority Rules: a transferee who is not a purchaser is bound by all preexisting proprietary rights

Question 65

Section 29 LRA 2002

Answer 65

Priority rules: a purchaser for value has priority all interests except those entered on the register and those overriding

Question 66

Sched 1 LRA 2002

Answer 66

Interests which override in relation to first registration of unregistered land --> unregistered land not relevant

Question 67

Sched 3 LRA 2002

Answer 67

Overriding interest in relation to registered land: 1) legal leases < 7 years 2) the proprietary rights of a person in actual occupations 3) implied easements (and profits a pendre)

Question 68

Overriding interests: legal leases < 7 years

Answer 68

Between 3 and 7 years and created by deed Less than 3 years, legal regardless of formalities EXCEPTIONS: reversionary leases, leases of discontinuous nature (time shares), equitable leases and leases > 7 years must be registered to bind 3rd parties

Question 69

Overriding interests: proprietary rights of a person in actual occupation

Answer 69

Protects any proprietary right the person already enjoys, does not necessarily protect the right of actual occupation

Question 70

Schedule 3, paragraph 2

Answer 70

A person in actual occupation will lose their rights if, when asked, they fail to disclose their rights or if actual occupation not obvious on a reasonably careful inspection of the land by the new owner

Question 71

National Provincial v Ainsworth

Answer 71

To have an overriding interest by actual occupation, the person must have a proprietary interest to begin with i.e. as a beneficiary or with an equitable lease A licence is not a proprietary interest --> someone with a licence cannot claim an overriding interest of actual occupation

Question 72

Abbey National v Cann

Answer 72

The person claiming overriding interest must be in actual occupation at the time of transfer (completion) AND registration. ``` Mrs Cann (mother) had proprietary right under constructive trust. Although her furniture/removal men were present at property some 35 mins before completion, she was not. Lord Oliver: being present at the time of registration was too late. ```

Question 73

Chhokar v Chhokar

Answer 73

To be in actual occupation does not need actual presence at the time of transfer just evidence of your physical presence coupled with an intention to return. Mr Chhokar was sole legal owner, Mrs Chhokar the beneficiary under a trust. They were about the start divorce proceedings so Mr wanted sold property to friend Mr Parmar while his wife was in hospital giving birth. He hid MOST of her belongings in cupboards.

Question 74

Thompson v Froy || Link Lending v Bustard

Answer 74

Echoed Chhokar v Chhokar

Question 75

Lloyds Bank v Rosset

Answer 75

You can be in actual occupation through your agents (here Mrs Rosset's builders)

Question 76

Hypo-Mortgage Services v Robinson

Answer 76

The presence of children of the claimant will not in itself give rise to a successful claim of actual occupation Children are NOT agents

Question 77

Application - actual occupation

Answer 77

Nine year lease that does not appear on the register --> not legal Lease > 7 years --> needs to be registered to bind as an equitable lease STILL a proprietary right: using lease as a trigger to claim overriding interest in actual occupation under Sch 3, para 2 --> purchaser bound by the remaining term of lease

Question 78

Schedule 3, paragraph 3

Answer 78

An implied legal easement can override if: ...the new owner has knowledge of it at time of disposition ...it was obvious on a reasonably careful inspection ...person claiming implied legal easement can show they have been using it at any time in the last year

Question 79

Schedule 3, paragraphs 10-14

Answer 79

Archaic overriding interests, originally governed by s. 70(1)(a) LRA 1925: manorial rights, sea walls, chancel repairs GIVEN A 10 YEAR TRANSITIONAL PERIOD: ceased to be overriding interests in 2013. They can still be protected but must be entered on register as notice.

Question 80

"adverse possessor"

Answer 80

must take the land as their own by essentially displacing the rights of the paper owner

Question 81

LRA 2002: adverse possession

Answer 81

Schedule 6: change of procedure, more difficult for an adverse possessor on registered land to succeed in being awarded title of the land by registrar

Question 82

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012

Answer 82

S. 144: made it a criminal offence to be a squatter on residential property --> unclear how this sits with Schedule 6, seems more unlikely for a squatter to get to the necessary 10-year point RETROSPECTIVE: unclear as to whether (even if 10 years are reached) squatters might be arrested at the point of making a legitimate claim under LRA 2002

Question 83

Wallis' Cayton Bay Holiday Camp v Shell-Mexx and BP

Answer 83

Lord Denning: adverse possession = acquisition of land simply by possessing it without assent or dissent of the owner

Question 84

Social/economic reasons for adverse possession

Answer 84

1) "land": system that validates reality - empirical not principle based, organic rather than principled 2) more desirable for property not dos and empty/abandoned for too many years: starts to fall apart, damage may be done to other property/people passing by 3) "saleability": if all did it, housing marked might stagnate 4) social responsibility 5) Settling disputes: commercial use

Question 85

RB Policies at Lloyds v Butler

Answer 85

"Those who go to sleep on their claim should not be assisted to recover their property"

Question 86

Critique of adverse possession

Answer 86

Contrary to tenets of "ownership": just because property has been left empty for some time, why should the paper owner be penalised by losing title - doesn't the owner have the right to do as they please with their property, including abandonment

Question 87

Limitation Act 1980

Answer 87

s. 15(1): no action to recover land can be brought after 12 years from the date of action accrued --> prior to LRA 2002, squatter had to take possession for a full 12 years STILL THE LAW FOR UNREGISTERED LAND

Question 88

Prior to LRA 2002: adverse possession

Answer 88

LA 1980 did not give title to squatter per se, MERELY extinguished rights of the paper owner who was the barred to make a claim (Fair-weather v St Marylebone Property) --> paper owner said to be holding proportion trust for adverse possessor who could the apply for possessory title, which may then be upgraded to absolute title (s. 75 LRA 1925)

Question 89

LRA 1925 vs. LRA 2002: proprietary right of AP

Answer 89

Now, there is no longer an overriding interest from day 1, proprietary right now only comes into existence at the 10-year point WHEN THE RIGHT TO CLAIM EXISTS

Question 90

2 stage test to determine whether squatter is actually an adverse possessor

Answer 90

1) Paper owner must be dispossessed or have discontinued possession 2) adverse possessor must take land to the exclusion of all others

Question 91

Test for AP: Paper owner must be dispossessed/have discontinued possession

Answer 91

Possession not enough, it must be adverse (Denning in Cayton, needs strong evidence that paper owner has indeed been dispossessed The no adverse possession if intention to return has been relaxed by the courts

Question 92

Leigh v Jack

Answer 92

Not adverse possession if land left unoccupied but evidence that paper owner intends to use it again in future -->overruled in Pye v Graham

Question 93

Buckingham CC v Moran

Answer 93

Slade LJ: Leigh's idea of return effectively consigned to history - owner with intention to return CAN be dispossessed if AP possesses land to the exclusion of all others (2nd stage of test) Relying on Seddon v Smith: locks, gates, chains can be a final demonstration of intention to posses (by exclusion)

Question 94

Test for AP: adverse possessor must take land to the exclusion of all others

Answer 94

AP needs to demonstrate 1) factual possession and 2) animus possidendi - intention to possess with the exclusion of all others

Question 95

Powell v McFarlane

Answer 95

Grazing a cow, cutting hay and repairing fences didn't succeed to establish intention to exclude all others - clear evidence of intention to possess and exclude

Question 96

Boozy v Davis

Answer 96

Grazing goats and clearing shrubs not seen as evidence for intention to possess and exclude

Question 97

Stacey v Gardner

Answer 97

installing an incinerator on the landlord's land was not evidence for intention to possess and exclude - THERE WERE NO FENCES/BOUNDARIES

Question 98

Basildon Council v Charge

Answer 98

Evidence for intention to possess and exclude of a single degree of occupation and physical control of the land uninterrupted by others

Question 99

Morrice v Evans

Answer 99

Acknowledgement of ownership of paper owner will defeat claim in AP: here, he had stopped using the greenhouse when asked to do so by the owner

Question 100

Lambeth BC v Blackburn

Answer 100

Acknowledgement of ownership of paper owner will defeat claim: here, he referred to the "possessed land" and "Lambeth's property" STATED: exclusion of all other likely to be inclusive factor in establishing AP

Question 101

Pye v Graham

Answer 101

HoL: Grahams had dispossessed the paper owner and showed an intention to exclude the world at large, including Pye No need to show intention to own land permanently, merely to possess and exclude for the requisite period of time Leigh v Jack was formally overruled

Question 102

CoA in Pye v Graham

Answer 102

No AP because Grahams had stated in evidence that they hoped to get a new licence --> IMPLYING THEY RECOGNISED PYE'S RIGHTS AS OWNER

Question 103

Pye v Graham: Human Rights

Answer 103

Pye v UK: Grand Chamber, by small majority, stated that English law of AP does not quite breach Protocol 1 of the ECHR (right not to have property taken without compensation) BECAUSE law is needed to balance rights of the owner with the right of the State to protect the housing market

Question 104

Schedule 6, LRA 2002

Answer 104

Statutory Scheme: Where a person has been in ap for at least 10 years, ending on the date of making applicator, that person may apply to the registrar to be registered as proprietor

Question 105

Baxter v Mannion

Answer 105

Adverse possession must have been at least 10 years and is STILL occurring on the date of application: they cannot serve 10 years, quit the land, then make an application --> has to be a "single transaction"

Question 106

If application under Schedule 6, paragraph 1 discloses arguable case for registration

Answer 106

Schedule 6, paragraph 2: notice will be sent to registered proprietor who has 65 business working days to respond with 1 of 3 options

Question 107

Part 9, LRA 2002

Answer 107

LA 1980, s. 15 DOES NOT APPLY TO REGISTERED LAND! | Paper owner will no longer automatically lose their right after 12 years

Question 108

Schedule 6, paragraph 2 NOTICE

Answer 108

Registrar will inform paper owner who must then take steps to recover land within 2 years - 3 options 1) consent 2) objection 3) counter-notice

Question 109

Option 1 for paper owner after application for AP: CONSENT

Answer 109

AP will be registered as proprietor: Balevents v Sartori - local authority was happy to give narrow strip of land to AP

Question 110

Option 2 for paper owner after application for AP: OBJECTION

Answer 110

On grounds of factual basis for AP claim being false for example. Option 3 is better.

Question 111

Option 3 for paper owner after application for AP: COUNTER-NOTICE

Answer 111

Simply ticking a box: AP cannot be entered as new registered proprietor unless any one of 3 exceptional grounds is made out (Schedule 6, paragraph 5) 1) Estoppel 2) squatter entitled for "some other reason" 3) boundary exception

Question 112

1) Estoppel exception: AP can succeed

Answer 112

Applicant must show they detrimentally relied on soma assurance by the paper owner in circumstances in which it would be unconscionable for the latter to resile HM Land Registry's EXAMPLE: squatter built on paper owner's land in mistaken belief it was their own and proprietor has knowingly acquiesced in the mistake

Question 113

Estoppel in AP vs. Estoppel

Answer 113

Why would they wish to rely on adverse possession (and wait 10 years) at all - proprietary estoppel is itself a sward capable of attacking proprietor's title? Successful proprietary estoppel claim does not necessarily guarantee title (only needs to remedy unconscionability - compensation in Jennings v Rice) vs. adverse possession/estoppel claim could get you title

Question 114

Hangup with adverse possession/estoppel

Answer 114

Schedule 6, paragraph 5 does not say that successful AP WILL be registered as proprietor if they support AP by estoppel - they must establish they "ought to be registered"

Question 115

2) "some other reason" exception: AP can succeed

Answer 115

HM Land Registry's example: AP has paid purchase price for the land but it has not been conveyed to him - Bridges v Mees; AP entitle to land under will/intestacy --> catch-all condition: unspecific nature, likely to be used by AP fearing the 2 year grace period

Question 116

McAllister J in Crosdil v Hodder

Answer 116

REMEMBER: examples for "some other reason" for AP all have actions independent of AP!

Question 117

3) boundary exception: AP can succeed (helping to solve boundary disputes

Answer 117

Conditions: 1. Land of applicant adjacent to that claimed 2. Boundary was not determined 3. Adjacent year was registered for > 1 year 4. applicant must have reasonable believed land belonged to them (Zarb v Parry) - anything equivalent to theft is excluded!

Question 118

2 year grace period

Answer 118

When registered proprietor has responded (within 65 business days) after Sch 6, para 2 notice (with consent, objection or counter-notice), they have 2 years to evict squatter unless the 3 exceptions (estoppel, other reason, boundary)

Question 119

6 CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH SQUATTER GETS TITLE

Answer 119

1) RP fails to respond within 65 days 2) RP consents 3) RP fails to evict within 2 years 4) boundary dispute: you reasonably believed boundary to be in the right place (Zarb v Parry) 5) Estoppel 6) "Some other reason"

Question 120

REMEMBER about the 2 year grace period

Answer 120

NOT 10 + 2 but whenever you applied + 2

Question 121

When do squatters realistically win?

Answer 121

Unregistered land, 12 years complete before 13 October 2003 or boundary disputes

Question 122

Walker v Burton (compare with Baxter v Mannion)

Answer 122

Registration as protector is conclusive - a mistake does not itself make it unjust not to rectify - the applicant seeking rectification must show why it would be unjust not to rectify in light of mistake Relevant whether that applicant has themselves been disposed and the degree to which the registered proprietor has relied on registration and dealt with land --> failsafe where, despite being in possession and not consenting and not contributing to the mistake, the registered proprietor's title might still be rectified

Question 123

Fitzwilliam Holdings v Richall (based on Malory v Cheshire Homes which challenged in relation to the 1925 Act)

Answer 123

Called the strength of the guarantee of title into question by suggesting s. 58 guarantees only legal title --> following a void conveyance, the new registered proprietor would hold on trust for the original proprietor => would render guarantee of title largely worthless

Question 124

Swift 1st v Chief Land Registrar

Answer 124

Lessens the impact of Fitzwilliam: s. 58 means exactly what it says - a person registered with a title has both legal and equitable title even if there is some error in the transaction leading to registration