Registered Title

Question 0

Spiro v Glencrown Properties

Answer 0

For the creation of an equitable right usually need a written instrument s2 L(MP)A 1989

Question 1

Legal rights

Answer 1

Estate in fee simple
Term of years absolute more than 7 years
Easements
Mortgage/rent charges
S1 LPA 1925

Question 2

Walsh v Lonsdale

Answer 2

A mere contract which fails to be followed by a deed will create an equitable version of what it should have created e.g. defective grant per LP(MP)A s1 - ‘equity sees as done that which ought to be done’

Question 3

Sainsbury’s v Olympia

Leeman v Mohammed

Answer 3

Failure to register a registrable legal title will mean that the legal estate will not take effect - not as much protection

Failure to do so within 3 months will see the transferor hold on trust for the transferee

Question 4

Barclays Bank v Zaroovabli

Answer 4

A charge must be registered in order to have its legal status and the priority that this brings

Question 5

Overriding interests

Answer 5

ss 11-12, 29-30

As defined in sch 1 and sch 3

Question 6

Halfiax v Popeck

Answer 6

A transfer for value is a question of substance not form cf s28 LRA 2002

Question 7

William & Glyn’s Bank v Boland

Answer 7

Curtain principle - need only be concerned with legal title when buying land as the equitable interests will be overreached - however, like here, might have to look behind the curtain and issues can arise if interests are not overreached - cf. s29

Question 8

City of London BS v Flegg

Answer 8

Overreaching

Question 9

Abbey National BS v Cann

Answer 9

Actual occupation - no need for physical presence

Question 10

Cook v Mortgage Business

Answer 10

The ‘registration gap’ and overriding interests - actual occupation is needed at the time of the execution of the transfer

Question 10

Walker v Burton

Answer 10

Registration is title so he who has acquired it by way of fraud through the register has a valid title albeit he may be subject to an claim of rectification

Question 10

Malory Enterprises v Cheshire Homes and Chief Land Registrar

Answer 10

Questioned the conclusiveness of title when fraudulently acquired contending that there was no ‘disposition’ - this has been heavily criticised but it was under the 1925 act where it was ‘registration of title’ not ‘title by registration’, the latter of which provides certainty

Question 12

Baxter v Mannion

Answer 12

Rectification of the register after a mistake (it was an adverse possessor, however) - this is opposed to Walker v Burton

Question 14

Fitzwilliam v Richall (Newey J)

Answer 14

In contrast to Walker this subverts the very basis of the LRA 2002 although it may seem superficially ‘fair’ – here there was no mention of the rectification provisions, it was restored merely by error of fraud - this means that ‘title guarantee is a fiction’ (dixon)

Question 15

Swift 1st v Chief Land Registrar

Answer 15

Because of Fitzwilliam and Malory, the judge had to use a bizarre, obviated way due to being bound - on appeal to CA

Question 16

Malory, Fitzwilliam, Proudlove v Wood

Walker, Blenheim Finance v Goulding, s58

Answer 16

The tension between a pre-existing title being able to be undone and registration being the source of a guaranteed title is yet unresolved

Question 17

Thompson v Foy

Answer 17

Actual occupation – ordinary words of plain English and physical presence is required – agents of a company do not suffice and children living with their parents cannot be in actual occupation in their own right

Question 18

Link Lending v Bustard

Answer 18

Actual occupation

Question 19

Malory v Cheshire Homes (actual occupation)

Answer 19

Usually the ‘mere’ presence of furniture will be insufficient but this depends on the context e.g. if a piece of land is derelict

Question 20

Strand Securities v Caswell

Answer 20

Presence of a licensee will not give actual occupation to a licensor unless they have actual occupation in their own right e.g. an option to purchase

Question 21

Thompson v Foy

Link Lending v Bustard

Answer 21

‘Actual occupation’ does not require the subject to be there continually, but rather, it must be a permanence with intention to return and not of a transient nature – difficulty with certainty and dealing with the subjective intentions of the parties

Question 22

Chaudhary v Yavuz

Answer 22

Actual occupation not actual use, therefore using an easement on the occupied land is insufficient

Question 23

Cook v The Mortgage Business

Answer 23

The ‘registration gap’ under schedule 3 has been resolved and actual, discoverable occupation is critical AT THE TIME OF THE TRANSFER

Question 24

Thompson v Foy (sched 3) - Lewison J

Answer 24

Lewison J stated obiter that actual occupation must be present at both transfer and registration but this is inconsistent with commentary and at all events the issue will disappear with e-conveyancing

Question 25

Williams & Glyn's Bank v Boland

Answer 25

Sch 3, Para 2 (c)(i-ii) is not to protect the incompetent, it is an objective test - had the transferee made a reasonably careful inspection, would he have found actual occupation? Therefore, even if he doesn't inspect, but the occupation is not reasonably obvious, he will still succeed - therefore to protect P

Question 26

Thomas v Clydesdale Bank

Answer 26

Where occupation is not obvious, but present, one must look at whether the transferee had actual knowledge of the right --- if no occupation then this is irrelevant

Question 27

Wheeldon v Burrows

Answer 27

Legal easements, which are expressly granted, must be registered to override -- if they are impliedly granted then they may fall here and under s62 - actual knowledge of transferee, obvious on inspection, used within one year of disposition or registered under the Commons Registration Act

Question 28

Abbey National BS v Cann

Answer 28

To override, the interest must have been in actual occupation with a proprietary right to override -- therefore anything that arises inbetween sale and registration will not bind

Question 29

Paddington BS v Mendelson

Answer 29

A right-holder can expressly or impliedly consent to waiving his overriding interest - will therefore not band

Question 30

Skipton BS v Clayton

Answer 30

Mere knowledge of a transaction e.g. a mortgage is insufficient there needs to be active participation -

Question 31

Bank of Scotland v Qutb

Answer 31

The second additional limb of overriding interests in Sched 3 (after actual, discoverable occupation/actual knowledge) is whether the transferee made enquiries (to the right-holder) about the right and occupation, and whether the transferor would have been reasonably expected to disclose, if yes to both then interest will NOT override

Question 32

Llyod v Dugdale

Answer 32

An unregistered interest will override where they are estopped because P promised to give effect and he had an advantage e.g. a lower price -- conduct must be unconscionable - completing purchase before the interest is registered is not unconscionable

Question 33

City of London BS v Flegg

Answer 33

Not all equitable rights are capable of being overreached cf s2 LPA - it is the equitable co-ownership rights which will be, equitable easements are never overreached

Question 34

HSBC v Dyche

Answer 34

To overreach there must be 2 or more legal owners

Question 35

State Bank of India v Sood

Answer 35

NB that if capital monies are payable (but not necessarily paid) on transaction then this will satisfy LPA 2(1)(ii) to overreach -- largely decided for policy reasons

Question 36

Williams & Glyn's Bank v Boland (failure to overreach)

Answer 36

Failure to overreach - 1. If the equitable interest is an overriding interest then will bind s29 , 2. If not an overriding interest then P will take free

Question 37

Paton v Todd

Answer 37

In order for a rectification to be made the circumstances must be 'exceptional'

Question 38

Pinto v Lim

Answer 38

A 'mistake' regards rectification is not necessarily fraudulent

Question 39

Baxter v Mannion (mistake)

Answer 39

A mistake can also be as to the basis of the registration, so, the process was properly completed but like here for example, the adverse possessor had not actually completed the requisite 10 years

Question 40

Walker v Burton | Drake v Fripp

Answer 40

Prejudicial will usually mean that there is an effect on the title or value of the land Can also concern boundaries

Question 41

Re Chowood's Registered Land

Answer 41

An alteration to give effect to an overriding interest can never be a rectification as it was pre-existing and therefore does not prejudicially effect title

Question 42

Walker v Burton (possession)

Answer 42

C may be given a rectification against a reg. P in possession in certain circumstances, possession will vary according to the context

Question 43

Norwich & Peterborough BS v Steed | Rees v Peters

Answer 43

Under the third condition of 'unjustness' for rectification, one must be careful - it being 'just and equitable' to do so is insufficient -- it will almost always be unjust in one sense to rectify the register Must be balanced between the two competing interests