Amy Proferes considers overriding interests, overreaching, & the perils of the ‘registration gap’
- Property practitioners should take Baker v Craggs as a timely warning of the perils of the registration gap where land is being sold by co-owners.
- Until registration is complete, it must not be assumed that rights in the land conveyed are settled.
The Land Register is intended to provide certainty by reflecting all facts relevant to a parcel of land, from ownership to restrictive covenants to charges. However certain interests, sometimes called ‘the crack in the mirror of title’, are deemed to be important enough that they can ‘override’ a registered disposition even if they do not appear on the Register.
Under ss 29 and 30 of the Land Registration Act 2002 (LRA 2002), an unregistered interest must exist and be enforceable at the date of registration of the disposition (rather than the date of transfer) in order for it to take priority over a registered disposition of an estate or charge. This presents the worrying possibility
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77dbbdb7_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b3bea7f_1)
