Registration of Property Rights p2 Flashcards
(24 cards)
Can the Land Register be altered or rectified? What is the underlying principle?
Yes, the Register can be altered or rectified as mistakes can occur. However, the guarantee of title is not absolute (Gold Harp Properties Ltd v MacLeod).
What are the main purposes for which the Land Registrar or the court can alter the register? (Sch. 4, paras. 2 & 5, LRA 2002)
Correcting a mistake, bringing the register up to date, giving effect to excepted estates/rights, and removing a superfluous entry (Registrar only).
What is ‘rectification’ of the register and what are the key conditions for it? (Sch. 4, para. 1, LRA 2002)
Rectification is an alteration that involves the correction of a mistake and prejudicially affects the title of a registered proprietor.
What protection is afforded to a proprietor in possession against rectification of the register? (Sch. 4, para. 3(2), LRA 2002)
No rectification order without the proprietor’s consent if they are in possession, unless their fraud or lack of proper care caused/substantially contributed to the mistake, or it would be unjust not to rectify.
According to Knights Construction v Roberto Mac, what is the outcome when land is mistakenly registered for the first time?
The true owner was entitled to rectification to exclude their land from the mistakenly registered title. The innocent purchaser was entitled to compensation from the Land Registry.
What power do the court and Land Registrar have regarding the priority of interests when rectifying the register? (Sch. 4, para 8 LRA 2002)
They can change the future priority of any interest affecting the registered estate or charge concerned.
According to Gold Harp Properties Ltd v MacLeod, how might priority be adjusted upon rectification?
The priority of an original leasehold interest mistakenly deleted was restored, even though a new leasehold interest had been registered in the interim.
What is the underlying principle in unregistered land regarding title transfer?
Nemo dat non quod habet - one cannot give what one does not own. A void title remains void, protecting static security.
How is fraud by a seller generally dealt with in registered land regarding the buyer’s title? (s.58 LRA 2002, Swift 1st Ltd v Chief Land Registrar)
Registration as proprietor gives the buyer legal and equitable title due to the ‘statutory magic’ of registration, even if the transaction involved fraud, protecting dynamic security.
What exception to the Swift principle was established in Rashid v Nasrullah regarding fraudulent buyers?
The Swift principle (vesting full legal and beneficial title) only applies to innocent parties. A buyer who procured registration through fraud only holds legal title, with the equitable title held on trust for the true owner.
What are the potential remedies for a ‘true owner’ defrauded of their registered land?
They can apply for rectification of the title and the losing party (true owner or innocent buyer) can apply to the Land Registry for indemnity.
What is the key distinction between ‘alteration’ and ‘rectification’ of the register?
Rectification specifically involves the correction of a mistake that prejudicially affects a registered proprietor’s title.
When is a proprietor’s consent required for rectification of the register concerning land in their possession?
Consent is generally required unless their fraud or lack of proper care contributed to the mistake, or it would be unjust not to rectify.
What is ‘indemnity’ in the context of land registration?
Compensation paid by the Land Registry to a party who has suffered a loss due to a mistake on the register or its alteration/non-alteration. It’s the State guarantee of registered title.
For what circumstances is indemnity available? (Sch. 8 LRA 2002)
Available for loss resulting from a decision to rectify or a decision not to rectify a mistake that prejudicially affects the title of a registered proprietor.
In what situations is indemnity NOT payable? (Sch. 8, para 5 LRA 2002)
For loss due to the claimant’s own fraud or lack of proper care, or for alterations to show an overriding interest.
According to Re Chowood’s Registered Land, why is no indemnity payable for alterations showing an overriding interest?
The proprietor was always bound by the overriding interest, even if it wasn’t on the register initially, so their title isn’t ‘prejudicially affected’ by its entry.
How is the amount of indemnity calculated for a decision to rectify versus a decision not to rectify? (Sch. 8 para 6 LRA 2002)
Value of the lost estate/interest immediately before rectification. Not rectify: Value of the estate/interest at the date the mistake causing the loss was made.
What is the key limitation on the availability of indemnity under the LRA 2002?
Indemnity is only available in respect of a decision either to rectify or not to rectify a mistake that prejudicially affects a registered proprietor’s title.
Gold Harp Properties Ltd v MacLeod [2014] EWCA Civ 1084
Illustrates that the guarantee of title is not absolute and shows how the court can adjust the priority of interests upon rectification to restore a mistakenly removed interest.
Knights Construction v Roberto Mac [2011] 2 EGLR 123
Demonstrates the application of rectification where land was mistakenly registered. The true owner obtained rectification, and the innocent purchaser received indemnity.
Swift 1st Ltd v Chief Land Registrar [2015] EWCA Civ. 330
Confirmed that under s.58 LRA 2002, registration as proprietor gives the buyer legal and equitable title, even in cases of fraud by the seller, prioritizing dynamic security.
