header-logo header-logo

Land registration: the meaning of mistake

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

Kingsley Napley—Paul Davidoff

Kingsley Napley—Paul Davidoff

Partner joins as lead of international tax desk

Reed Smith—Michael Darowski

Reed Smith—Michael Darowski

International arbitration partner joins disputes team in London

Shakespeare Martineau — 12 newly qualified solicitors

Shakespeare Martineau — 12 newly qualified solicitors

Firm celebrates strong retention and new talent across practice areas

NEWS
In July, the Supreme Court quashed the convictions of Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo, ruling that trial judges had wrongly directed juries to treat profit-motivated Libor submissions as inherently dishonest. In this week’s NLJ, David Stern and James Fletcher of 5 St Andrew’s Hill reflect on the decision
David Bailey-Vella of Davis Woolfe and chair of the Association of Costs Lawyers explores the new costs budgeting light pilot scheme in this week's NLJ
In his latest 'Civil way' column for this week's NLJ, Stephen Gold delivers a witty roundup of procedural updates and judicial oddities. From the rise in litigant-in-person hourly rates (£24 from October) to the Supreme Court’s venue hire options (canapés in Courtroom 1, anyone?), Gold blends legal insight with dry humour
Writing in NLJ this week, Nick Brett and Vicky Lankester of Brett Wilson dissect the chronic failures of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in meeting disclosure obligations. From the Post Office scandal to the collapsed trial of Liam Allan, they highlight how systemic neglect has led to wrongful convictions and miscarriages of justice
In this week's issue of NLJ, Emma Brunning and Dharshica Thanarajasingham of Birketts unpack the high-conflict financial remedy case TF v SF [2025] EWHC 1659 (Fam). The husband’s conduct—described by the judge as a ‘masterclass in gaslighting’—included hiding a £9.5m deferred payment from the sale of a port acquired post-separation. Despite his claims that the port was non-matrimonial, the court found its value rooted in marital assets and efforts
back-to-top-scroll