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 >> Mason v Carrington (Alteration and rectification of the register : Alteration affecting the title of land in the possession of a registered proprietor) [2018] UKFTT 171 (PC) (14 February 2018) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWLandRA/2018/2016_0737.html Cite as: [2018] UKFTT 171 (PC) |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Wendy Mason v Lionel Daniel Carrington (Alteration and rectification of the register : Alteration affecting the title of land in the possession of a registered proprietor) [2018] UKFTT 171 (PC) (14 February 2018)
Application to alter the register by replacing the Respondent as proprietor with the Applicant, as executor of the estate of her late father. The father died many years before. At the date of his death he was registered proprietor of a 2 storey house built on a bank with a garage and driveway on a lower level. Nothing was done to wind up the estate. After the death of his widow, the executor granted a fixed term tenancy to X. X did not move into the house. The Respondent moved into the house after the expiry of the fixed term. He did not make use of or control the garage or driveway. The Applicant knew that the Respondent had gone into possession but did not apply for a grant of representation in the estate until years later when the Respondent obtained registration as proprietor and then put the house up for sale. Applicant's argument that the fixed term tenancy continued as if it had been an assured shorthold tenancy was rejected as a matter of construction of the tenancy agreement. Applicant’s argument that Schedule 6 para 12 applied was rejected on the grounds that a personal representative does not hold on trust for the purposes of para 12 (following Best v. Curtis [2016] EWLandRA 2015 0130). Effect was to be given to the application as regards the garage and forecourt because Respondent had not been in possession and had caused the mistake on the register by telling HM Land Registry that he was in possession. Otherwise, the application was to be cancelled.
A HTML version of this file is not available click here or view below the pdf version : [2018] UKFTT 171 (PC)
