Registration Theory Notes

Law Notes > Land Law Notes

This is an extract of our Registration Theory document, which we sell as part of our Land Law Notes collection written by the top tier of Oxford students.

The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Land Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Unregistered land........................................................................................4
Hunt v Luck [1902] 1 Ch 428....................................................................................................... 5
Kingsnorth Finance Co Ltd v Tizard [1986] 1 WLR 783................................................................5
Law of Property Act 1925 ss 198, 199......................................................................................... 5
Land Charges Act 1972 ss 2, 4(5)(6), 10(4), 17...........................................................................6
Midland Bank v Green [1981] AC 513.......................................................................................... 6

Introduction................................................................................................. 6
Gardner (2014) 77 MLR 763......................................................................................................... 6

Purchasers with actual notice.......................................................................7
Smith, Pp 250 - 257..................................................................................................................... 7
L.R.A s23, 26, 29.......................................................................................................................... 9
Law Com 254, Para 3.39-3.50...................................................................................................... 9
Law Com 271, paras 5.16-21, 5.1-5, 5.6-5.13............................................................................10
(previous law) Peffer v Rigg [1977] 1 W.L.R. 285......................................................................11
Lyus v Prowsa [1982] 2 All E.R. 953........................................................................................... 11
Thompson, "Registration, Fraud and Notice" [1985] C.L.J. 280.................................................11
Howell, "Notice: A broad view and a narrow view" [1996] Conv 34 at pp 40-43.......................13
Farah Constructions V Say-Dee (2007) 81 ALJR l 107 at [190]-[198] (High Court of Australia)..13
Midland Bank v Green [1981] AC 513........................................................................................ 14

Forgery...................................................................................................... 14
Swift 1st Ltd v CLR [2015] EWCA Civ 330.................................................................................. 14
Lees (2015) 131 LQR 515........................................................................................................ 14
Milne [2015] Conv 356............................................................................................................ 15
Smith [2015] CLJ 401.............................................................................................................. 16

Overriding interests (Introduction)..............................................................17
Smith, 257 - 275........................................................................................................................ 17
LRA, s 115-116, Schedule 3...................................................................................................... 19
Law Com 254, Parts IV and V..................................................................................................... 19
Law Com 271, Part VIII (we study Schedule 3, though some of the material is discussed in relation to Schedule 1 - first registration).................................................................................. 20

Overriding Interests (Paragraph 1)..............................................................20
City Permanent BS v Miller [1952] Ch 840................................................................................. 20

Overriding interests (Paragraph 2)..............................................................20
National Provincial Bank Ltd v Ainsworth [1965] AC 1175 at pp 1226-1227 and 1259-1262.....20
Malory Enterprises Ltd v Cheshire Homes (UK) Ltd [2002] Ch 216............................................21
Epps v EssO Petroleum [1973] 2 All E.R. 465............................................................................21
PAlk (1974) 38 Conv. 236........................................................................................................ 21
Swift 1st Ltd v Chief Land Registrar [2015] EWCA Civ 330........................................................22
Williams and Glyn's Bank v Boland [1980] 2 All E.R. 408...........................................................22
Smith [1981] L.Q.R. 12............................................................................................................ 23
Sydenham [1980] Conv. 427................................................................................................... 23
Martin [1981] Conv. 219......................................................................................................... 24

LAND LAW: REGISTRATION (II)

Page 1 Lloyds Bank v Rossett [1988] 3 All E.R. 915, 924-927, 938-942, 945-948 (only actual occupation issues)..................................................................................................................... 24
Smith, (1988) 104 L.Q.R. 507.................................................................................................. 25
Sparkes [1989] Conv. 342....................................................................................................... 25
Abbey National v Cann [1990] 1 All E.R. 1085...........................................................................25
Smith 106 L.Q.R. 32................................................................................................................ 26
Hypo-Mortgage Services Ltd v Robinson [1997] 2 FLR 71........................................................26
Link Lending Ltd v Bustard [2010] EWCA Civ 424......................................................................26
[2010] 28 E.G. (Estates Gazette) 86........................................................................................ 26
Chaudhary v Yavuz [2011] EWCA 1314; [2013] Ch 249.............................................................26
McFarlane, "Eastenders, Neighbours and Upstairs Downstairs: Chaudhary v Yavuz, 2013 Conv 74 (Comment on Chaudhary v Yavuz...................................................................................... 27
Jackson, Title by registration and concealed overriding interests: the cause and effect of antipathy to documentary proof, 119 LQR 660..........................................................................28
City of London BS v Flegg [1988] AC 54.................................................................................... 29
Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages Ltd [2015] A.C. 385............................................................29
Mortgage Express v Lambert [2016] 3 WLR 1582......................................................................29
Dixon, Priority, overreaching and surprises under the Land Registration Act 2002, 133 LQR 173
(Comment on Lambert).............................................................................................................. 29
Bristol and West BS v Henning [1985] 1 WLR 778.....................................................................30
Paddington BS v Mendelsohn (1985) 50 P & CR 244.................................................................30

Alteration and indemnity............................................................................30
Textbook.................................................................................................................................... 30
LRA, Schedule 4, paras 1-4, 8, s 131, Schedule 8, paras 1, 5-9, 11...........................................32
Law Com 254, Part VIII............................................................................................................... 32
Law Com No 271, Part X............................................................................................................ 33
Baxter v Mannion [2011] 2 All ER 574....................................................................................... 33
Gold Harp Properties v MacLeod [2014] EWCA Civ 1084...........................................................33
Goymour [2015] Conv 253...................................................................................................... 33
Smith [2015] CLJ 10................................................................................................................ 35
Swift First Ltd v CLR [2015] EWCA Civ 330................................................................................ 35
Goymour [2013] CLJ 617............................................................................................................ 35
Cooper, "Resolving Title Conflicts in Registered Land, (2015) 131 LQR 108.............................36

Electronic Conveyancing.............................................................................37
Land Registration Act 2002 ss 91-93, Schedule 5 paras 1-2, 6-9...............................................37
Law Com No 254, Part XI (in outline)......................................................................................... 37
Goals of e-conveyancing................................................................................................................. 37
Concerns regarding E-Conveyancing...............................................................................................37

Law Com No 271, Part XIII, especially paras 13.1-20, 13.47-54, 13.72-84.................................37

General Issues............................................................................................ 37
Benefits of E-Conveyancing............................................................................................................. 37
How effective is Law Comm at restricting overriding interests?......................................................38 benefits of registration.................................................................................................................... 38
Actual occupation overriding interests: issues................................................................................38

Tutorial Questions (and answers)................................................................38
Tutorial Notes............................................................................................ 40
LAND LAW: REGISTRATION (II)

Page 2 Questions.................................................................................................. 41
Problem Question....................................................................................... 41

LAND LAW: REGISTRATION (II)

Page 3 UNREGISTERED LAND
Rule: legal rights automatically bind the world (all subsequent purchasers, squatters etc.) and equitable rights bind all other than the bona fide purchaser of a legal estate for value without notice. Role greatly diminished by the increase in registration, and even rules of unregistered land are overlaid by registration of land charges and overreaching.
I - Land charges
LCA 1925 (consolidated into LCA 1972) introduced a means of publicity and certainty by providing for statutory notice of certain interests affecting an unregistered estate: they are those burdens on unregistered land that are appropriate for long-term enforcement irrespective of the identity of the estate owner.
The Act modifies the traditional doctrine of notice by providing that registration in the Register of Land
Charges is "deemed to constitute actual notice ... to all persons and for all purposes" (LPA 1925 s198(1)).
The effect of non-registration is usually voidness of the registrable interest against most kinds of purchasers (but never as between the original parties or their donnees (recipient under a will or intestacy)
1) Class A, B, C(i-iii), F: void against a purchaser of the land charged with it, or of any interest in such land (purchaser = anyone who gives valuable consideration, precluding any enquiry into adequacy (Midland Bank v Green, Lord Wilberforce)
2) Class C(iv), D: void against a purchaser for money or money's worth of a legal estate in the land charged (s4(6) LCA 1975)
Note: this statutory immunity can be defeated by arguments of constructive trust or estoppel (ER Ives v
High).
Voidness of registrable but unregistered charges make it irrelevant that the purchaser had actual express knowledge of the existence of the interest (s199(1)(i) LPA 1925) - this effects a change "from a moral to an a-moral basis" in the protection of equitable interests in land (HWR Wade).
Briefly thought that taking a conveyance at an undervalue in a deliberate attempt to free the estate of some known but unregistered incumbrance commits a form of fraud which disables him from pleading the fact of non-registration, but in Midlande Bank v Green this was denied - the only form of notice relevant to land charges is that constituted by entry in the register, thus, there is no criterion of good faith in the operation of LCA ("it is not fraud to take advantage of legal rights, the existence of which may be taken to be known to both parties" Lord Wilberforce).
Classes of land charges:
1) Class C(iv): estate contract (contracts for the sale of a fee simple, contracts for a lease)
2) Class D(ii): restrictive covenant (a covenant or agreement other than between a lessor and lessee restrictive of the user of land)
3) Class D(iii): equitable easement (but the very persons in whose favour such charges commonly arise are those who tend to be unaware of the need to secure protection by registration: see ER
Ives v High)
II - Bona fide purchaser rule (equitable doctrine of notice)
Strategy of 1925 Act to eliminate the uncertainty of the doctrine by dividing equitable rights affecting unregistered land into 'specific' (registrable land charges) and 'general' (overreachable) burdens. But there is a third category of equitable rights whose effect can only be determined by a residual application of the bona fide purchaser rule.
LAND LAW: REGISTRATION (II)

Page 4 Content of the rule:
The purchaser must demonstrate, in order to be released from pre-existing equitable rights:
1) Bona fides (a "genuine and honest" absence of notice: Lord Wilberforce, Midlande Bank v Green)
2) Purchaser of legal estate (purchasers of equitable interests are in principle subject to all prior equitable interests irrespective of notice: London and South Western Railway Co v Gomm)
3) Purchaser for value (must give valuable consideration (so no donnee or squatter), but the adequacy is irrelevant)
4) Without notice (actual or constructive or imputed (matters of which the solicitor or agent was aware or should reasonably be aware))
Surviving applications:
1) Beneficial interests hidden behind an implied trust of land, in the context of a dealing by a sole owner of an unregistered legal estate (i.e. Williams and Glyn's Bank v Boland)
Thus, a purchaser of an unregistered legal estate takes subject to:
1)
2)
3)
4)

Any other pre-existing legal estates
Any registered land charge
Any overreached equitable interest of which he has notice (actual, constructive or imputed)
If leasehold, certain covenants and obligations arising under the lease

HUNT V LUCK [1902] 1 CH 428
Held: A purchaser will have constructive notice of any rights reasonably discoverable by inspection of the property, and, in particular, from enquiry of any occupier as to his interest and those of which he holds it.
This does not extend to the rights of a landlord.
Vaughan Williams LJ : 'if a purchaser or mortgageee has notice that the vendor or mortgagor is not in possession of the property, he must make enquiries of the person in possession, of the tenant who is in possession, and find out from him what his rights are, and if he does not choose to do that then whatever title he acquires as purchaser or mortgagee, will be subject to the title or right of the tenant in possession. I do not think that there is, for the purpose of ascertaining the title of the vendor, any obligation on the purchaser to make enquiries of a tenant with reference to anything but the possession and interest of the tenant.'

KINGSNORTH FINANCE CO LTD V TIZARD [1986] 1 WLR 783
Mr Tizard was the sole registered proprietor of the matrimonial home in which his wife had a beneficial interest. The marriage broke down and Mrs Tizard moved out but returned each day to look after their twin children and would stay the night if her husband was away. Mr Tizard mortgaged the property. On his application for the loan he stated that he was single. He arranged for the inspection to take place on a
Sunday when he knew his wife and children would be out. The agent inspecting the property noted that there was occupation by the children but he found no signs of occupation by the wife. Mr Tizard had said that she had moved out many months ago and was living with someone else close by.
Held: Kingsnorth Finance took the property subject to the wife's interest. The discrepancy between what
Mr Tizard had stated on his application form (single) and what the agent found when he inspected the property (referring to two children) alerted the lenders to the need for further inquiries, which were not made. Thus, C were prejudicially affected within the meaning of s199(1)(ii)(b) LPA 1925 by the knowledge of the agent.
(A purchaser is expected to inspect the land and make inquiry as to anything that appears inconsistent with the title offered by the vendor - possession constitutes notice of the rights of the possessor because
LAND LAW: REGISTRATION (II)

Page 5 possession is prima facie evidence of title. Thus, a purchaser will have notice of the rights of the possessor even though his possession is not immediately apparent.

MIDLAND BANK V GREEN [1981] AC 513
The father granted his son an option to purchase a farm, not registered. Then, wishing to deprive the son of the option, the father conveyed the farm to the mother for 1/80 of its worth. The son sought to register the option and give notice exercising it.
Held (HL): the mother took an interest in fee simple for valuable consideration and so was a purchaser for money, thus, the option, not having been registered, was void against her. The words of the Act were not to be qualified by an requirement that a purchaser must take in good faith or that the money paid must not be nominal.
Lord Wilberforce: the (LC) Act is clear and definite, and intended to provide a simple and understandable system for the protection of title to land; it should not be read down or glossed (this would destroy the usefulness of the Act). The definition of "purchaser" in LCA 1925 does not mention
"good faith" nor its predecessors - rather, the definition of "purchaser for value" (a person who for valuable consideration takes any interest in land) in the 1888 Act was to be carried forward into the 1925
Act. Further, s13(2) of the 1925 Act doesn't mention "good faith", whereas several other sections do.
Construction must lead to the conclusion that the omission was deliberate.
But why the omission? Requiring good faith would bring the necessity of inquiring into the purchaser's motives and state of mind (difficult: if the purchaser simply had notice of the option but decided to buy the land, she's obviously in good faith. Would it change anything if the purchaser's motive was to defeat the option? Any advantage to oneself is necessarily a disadvantage for another; to make the validity of the purchase depend on which aspect of the transaction was prevalent in the purchaser's mind creates distinctions equally difficult to analyse in law as to establish in fact).

INTRODUCTION
GARDNER (2014) 77 MLR 763 1) Establishing registration arrangements wasn't the end in itself of LRA, but as a means to facilitate the Act's key aspiration: that all conveyancing should take place via electronic transaction 2) So we've moved from "registration of title" to "title by registration" - before, registration was an
"appendage" to conveyancing (dispositions were first done via traditional ways and then registered) while now dispositions were to be effected by registration 3) Act's non-delivery of constitutive registration:
a. Overriding interests b. Adverse possession c. Alteration d. Authoritative statements of the very aim of the Act: the "mirror" principle implies that the register is supposed to be an image of title of land at any given time (Law Comm 271, para

1.5), and not the very title itself, which the 2002 Act aspired to make the register. (mine could it be that the 2002 Act never intended the orthodox view?)
Discontinuation of e-conveyancing 1) Discontinued in 2011 because it was found that conveyancers didn't want to use it. Though it would later become mandatory, Land Registry envisaged a period when it would be optional, and during this period it would be ignored.
2) E-conveyancing would have several advantages like eliminating the registration gap, but it would also support autonomy because people would have control over their own dispositions, in that the act of electronic registration would be the disposition itself. Without e-conveyancing, registration
LAND LAW: REGISTRATION (II)

Page 6 is brought about by registry staff rather than the parties themselves. This limits people's autonomy.
Judicial treatment of conclusiveness/constitutiveness of registration 1) Decisions like Baxter v Mannion, Fitzwilliam etc. [though the latter has been disapproved] have largely undermined the claim that registration is conclusive. Conclusiveness logically doesn't support the idea that the Registry might be wrong - this is supportable with e-conveyancing,
because only the property entitled parties would be able to effect dispositions, but not if the
Registry does it instead. The courts are instinctively reluctant to accept such an erosion of autonomy

PURCHASERS WITH ACTUAL NOTICE
SMITH, PP 250 - 257
I.II.-

PRIORITIES
S28 LRA - priority of an interest is not affected by later (even registered) dispositions [subject to s29 priority enjoyed by registered dispositions].
General principles:
o A minor interest protected by notice affects the purchaser (assuming the interest is valid)
o Restrictions make inconsistent registrations unlikely, though purchasers are not bound once registered

Unprotected interests are defeated by registered disposition (s29) subject to below
REGISTERED DISPOSITIONS: PROTECTIONS FOR UNPROTECTED INTERESTS
What to do with unprotected interests when purchaser is (or should be) aware of them?
Some systems give no special protection to purchasers; others protect purchasers in every case except fraud (see Garro, The Louisiana Public Records Doctrine and the Civil Law Tradition, p 163)
English system protections:

i. Actual occupation - overriding interestsProtects people in actual occupation

ii. Bad faith or actual notice - lack of consideration-

Controversial before 2002 whether good faith was required - Peffer v Rigg said YES (Graham J)
but Midland Bank Trust v Green said NO (in relation to the land charges scheme, and thus distinguishable, but there HL warned that requiring good faith would require the difficult task of investigating purchaser's (often mixed) motives)
2002 Act doesn't directly address the question, but Law Comm made it very clear that actual notice nor bad faith will have any effect (Law Comm 254 para 3.45-46) and this is now settled
However, fraudulent transactions may persuade the court to conclude that there was no consideration as required by s29 (Halifax plc v Curry Popeck)

iii. Fraud - defeating s29Statutes cannot be used as instruments of fraud: therefore, fraud will likely defeat s29 (eg. Lyus v
Prowsa Developments Ltd)

LAND LAW: REGISTRATION (II)

Page 7

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Land Law Notes.

More Land Law Samples