header-logo header-logo

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

The land trap

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll