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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll