header-logo header-logo

29 March 2018 / Amy Proferes
Issue: 7787 / Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail

Land registration: the meaning of mistake

nlj_7787_proferes

The inevitable lot of mankind? Amy Proferes on ‘mistake’ in Schedule 4 of the Land Registration Act 2002

  • Clarity on the meaning of mistake.
  • Rectification will be sparingly exercised, and applications should be carefully considered prior to issue.

Schedule 4 of the Land Registration Act 2002 (LRA 2002) allows the court to order alteration of the Land Register for the purpose of correcting a mistake, bringing the register up to date, or giving effect to any estate, right or interest excepted from the effect of registration. Under paragraph 1 an alteration involving the correction of a mistake and prejudicially affecting the title of a registered proprietor is deemed to be rectification, rather than simple alteration. This distinction is significant. Rectification against a proprietor in possession who does not consent will only be ordered if he has caused or substantially contributed to the mistake by fraud or lack of proper care, or if it would be otherwise unjust not to make the order. Such ‘qualified indefeasibility’ therefore prefers an innocent transferee

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll