BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
England and Wales Land Registry Adjudicator |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Land Registry Adjudicator >> Lloyd & Anor v Bairn Investments Ltd & Ors (Alteration and rectification of the register : Alteration affecting the title of land in the possession of a registered proprietor) [2017] UKFTT 759 (PC) (22 September 2017) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWLandRA/2017/2016_1008.html Cite as: [2017] UKFTT 759 (PC) |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
(1) John Henry Lloyd (2) Sheila Mary Lloyd v (1) Bairn Investments Ltd (2) Robert Kynaston Owen (3) Henry Knott (Alteration and rectification of the register : Alteration affecting the title of land in the possession of a registered proprietor) [2017] UKFTT 759 (PC) (22 September 2017)
The property, a large farm, was first registered in 1991. A paper root of title was produced in respect of most of the land, but not to a track, the only means of access to the farm and farmhouse. Track included in the title plan of the farm based on a stat dec. The farm passed through several hands for value and the current proprietor was registered in 2001. The (unregistered) paper owner of part of the track emerged in 2014 and sought to alter the register by removing that part of the track from the title plan. It was not disputed that the registered proprietor (RP) was in possession of the track, and had been since 2001, that the alteration would prejudicially affect the RP and so was a rectification thus para 6 of Schedule 4 was engaged and that the RP had not caused or contributed to the mistake. Thus the case turned on ‘unjust not to make the alteration’. The only injustice relied upon was the fact that the paper title owner would lose ownership of the track. But that will always be the case where a title is registered to a party who has no lawful entitlement to it; the paper owner (when he turns up) will always be disposed. Counsel for A was unable to show any adverse conduct on the part of R to show that it would be unjust for R to retain the track. Held that the para 6(2(b) gateway had not been passed so that there was no power under para 5 to alter the register. The application failed. Issues concerning para 6(3) ‘exceptional circumstances’ also arose and there was discussion on Balevent v Sartori.
A HTML version of this file is not available click here or view below the pdf version : [2017] UKFTT 759 (PC)
