header-logo header-logo

The land trap

11 July 2014 / Nicholas Asprey
Issue: 7614 / Categories: Features , Property , Housing
printer mail-detail
specialist_property_asprey

A recent decision has had a suprising effect on provisions for rectifying the land register. Nicholas Asprey reports

Schedule 4 to the Land Registration Act 2002 (LRA 2002) contains provisions for “alteration” of the land register, but Fitzwilliam v Richall Holdings Services Ltd [2013] EWHC 86 (Ch) concerns that species of alteration which is defined in para 1 as “rectification”, namely alteration which:

  1. involves the correction of a mistake; and
  2. prejudicially affects the title of a registered proprietor.

Paragraph 2 gives the court power to make an order for alteration of the register for the purpose of correcting a mistake. Paragraph 3 relates to rectification.

Paragraph 3(2) provides that no order may be made under paragraph 2 without the proprietor’s consent in relation to land in his possession unless (a) he has by fraud or lack of proper care caused or substantially contributed to the mistake, or (b) it would for any other reason be unjust for the alteration not to be made.

Paragraph 3(2) therefore gives special protection to

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

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Appointment of former Solicitor General bolsters corporate investigations and white collar practice

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Firm strengthens international strategy with hire of global relations consultant

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Partner and associate join employment practice

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