REGISTERED LAND

 System started in 1912 and first ever land registered in1914. LPA
1925 summed up laws which were applicable till that time. It was a
consolidating act and was never thought a perfect act.
 LRA 2002 instead of paper conveyancing focuses on the part of e-
conveyancing. Land has to be registered and choice was left to the
people. Land needs to be registered and also if any int attached to
the land must also need to be registered. From this act there is
much more transparency.
 Every single int big or small having the ability to be registered
must be on the register. For this to be happen we need to see which
int are capable of being registered and what classification do they
have to be registerable. Classifications: I, Freehold or Leasehold
Estates ii, Legal Int iii, Notices iv, Restrictions v, Overriding Int.
 Mirror Principal: Registered land allows all rights and int to a
piece of land transparent on inspection of title as such when an
inspection is in fact done information related to it would be
obtainable. For instance identity of owner, nature of ownership,
any limitation on his ownership, any int of third parties.
 Above principal is not applicable to all existing rights and int on
the land and would be bind transferee even if they have not entered
on register. They are known as overriding int. This means they are
crack on mirror.
 Estates: For L.H.E 1925 protected int if the lease exceeds 21 years
but the LRA 2002 has reduced it to 7 years. Interests that can exist
on the land:
i. Easements, Mortgage, Restrictive Covenants.
ii. They are between grantor and grantee.
iii. Minor Int: Protected through Notice and Restriction.
iv. Commercial Equitable int can be protected in a
register under a notice (Sec.32 LRA 2002).
 v. Family equitable int can be protected as a restriction
(Sec.40 LRA 2002).
 Three Categories of Rights:
i. Registerable Int: Protected on register. After LRA 2002 if
they are not on register they will not be binding and will exist
in equity. Primarily Estates or Int comes into this category.
Sec.27 LRA 2002 states that certain right on land has to be
registered to give it an effect. Legal int should comply with
this section.
ii. Third Party Rights: It needs to be protected by entering on
the register. These include notices and restriction.
iii. Overriding Interest: Binds the purchaser but not on the
register.
 An equitable easements or lease is not an interest because it has to
be legal in nature, it has no form of any estate nor notice and
restriction.
 Should there be distinction between equitable and legal interest?
Prior to LRA 2002 the problem was seen in three cases. If treated
similarly then people would stop complying with formalities.
 Overriding int are not protected in register if these int are to be
given protection under the register then they need to be part of any
four categories mentioned above.
 Minor Int/ Third parties: Third parties are those people who are not
connected to the property itself. They are neither the seller nor
purchaser but have a certain kind of int which they wish to protect
as notice or restriction on register.
 Notices: Sec.32 of LRA 2002 states that notices can only be
registered on commercial interest and can be of two types. I,
Unilateral means Notice taken by interest holder and Bilateral
means requires both the parties to present their interest.
 Restrictions: If A contributes in the purchase value of house with
B a PMRT occurs making A beneficiary. Being a beneficiary A
 will hold an equitable title. This Equitable int cannot be protected
under estates or it nor cannot be protected under notices because
this protects only commercial int. It can be put as a restriction on
the register. If new purchaser ignores the entry on the register of
restriction, being in his actual knowledge that int will be binding.
 Overriding Int: This is the biggest crack on the mirror principal
application. Mirror principal has some disadvantages. It is a
complicated process, expensive and time consuming, presence of
all the int on the register will limit the enjoyment of that land
because register will include most minor int making less market
value.
 Because of the disadvantages of mirror principal a balance is
regarded to ease enquiries for new purchaser. All the int which are
not being discoverable should be protected on register but those int
which are fairly easy discoverable may be kept off on the register.
 Hence, a select group of number was left behind which was
governed by Sec.70(1) LPA 1925. This group of int is called
overriding int. Fact that they are not put on register meant that
mirror principal is negated a justification was needed to negate this
principal which was Curtain principal.
 Curtain Principal: Means that curtain int does not requires
protection on register because they are not related to land itself and
are fairly easy discoverable once the new purchaser comes to the
land. Therefore mirroring those principal was not important so
curtain principal was introduced and overriding int was allowed.
 Sec.70(1) LPA 1925 has been replaced by LRA 2002 but we need
to look at previous law for better understanding.
 Sec.70(1)(a) LPA 1925: Governed easements which were both
legal and equitable even if not protected under Sec.1(2). It will be
still binding if it does qualifies as overriding int.
 Sec.70(1)(f) LPA 1925: Governs adverse possession squatter
would have an overriding presence because no estate have
 transferred to him, no legal estate and no notice or restriction. If
squatter int is not discoverable then there will be no overriding int.
Law of adverse possession have modified by LRA 2002 and it
does not operate as overriding now.
 Sec.70(1)(k): Deals with legal and equitable leases less than 21
years. Lease might override the int of new purchaser and binding
nature of this lease comes from the fact that it is not put on the
register if it was put on register it would become weak int. Two
requirements of Overriding int I, Proprietary int ii, Actual
occupation means that you are residing on property, belongings on
property, you are receiving rents and profits.
 Actual Occupation:
 Link Lending v Bustard: B’s mental condition was not good and
she was in mental hospital because could not live in her house and
house was registered in her name. However, she used to visit her
house weekly. Third party fraudulently had her house transferred
in their name, mortgaged it and then defaulted payment. Bank ask
possession for the house. The question was here was that whether
B was entitled to override the interest of the bank by virtue of
actual occupation.
 Court held that YES overriding interest was present.
Trial judge said that actual occupation was present
because of several reasons including B’s regular visits,
third party’s knowledge of B;s mental incapacity and
B’s intention to remain in possession by visiting house
weekly.

 Abbey National v Cann: Mrs Cann had been living in rented

accommodation and was offered the opportunity to purchase the
freehold of the property at a substantial under value by virtue of
her status as a protected tenant. Mrs Cann could not afford to
 purchase the house but her son offered to purchase it on her behalf.
He took out a mortgage on the property and promised his mother
she could stay there rent free and would always have a roof over
her head. The property was duly conveyed into their joint names
and they both lived in the property along with Mrs Cann’s second
husband. Subsequently the house was sold and another property
was purchased in the sole name of the son. The purchase price
being met partly from the proceeds of sale and partly by mortgage
taken out by the son. The three of them lived in the property until
the son left to live with a woman who he subsequently married.
The son found it difficult to pay for the two homes and therefore
told Mr and Mrs Cann that he would need to sell the house and buy
them something smaller. They found a suitable property and the
son took out a mortgage with the Abbey National Building Society
to pay for the new property. He then defaulted on the payments
and the bank sought possession. Mrs Cann sought to establish an
overriding interest based on her contribution to the original
purchase in the form of the reduced purchase price through her
status as protected tenant and the son’s assurance that she would
always have a roof over her head coupled with actual occupation.
On the date of completion Mrs Cann was on holiday in the
Netherlands, but her son and husband had started moving in the
furniture and her carpet fitters had gone into the property 35
minutes before completion had taken place.
 Court held that the relevant time for determining
occupation for the purposes of s.70(1)(g) was the date
of completion of the transaction rather than the date of
registration. The preliminary acts of moving in were
not sufficient to constitute actual occupation.
 Overreaching And Registered Property:
 An overriding interest can be overreached.
 City of London v Flegg: Three people contributed to
purchase price of property. Two people mortgage the
property and defaulted on the payments and bank
sought possession. Issue was that third person who
was not involved in mortgage can refuse bank
possession by virtue of actual occupation. Although
she had a proprietary interest in the property coupled
with residence making her actual occupant but
because mortgage was provided by two people
(trustee) her interest was overreached.
 Williams and Glyn’s Bank v Boland: Wife
contributed in purchase price of property which was
registered in her husband’s name. She had a
proprietary interest and also have an actual
occupation. In the wife absence husband forged her
signature and mortgaged property. Bank possessed
property when he defaulted payments. It was held that
wife interest was binding on the bank because she was
actual occupant and her interest cannot overreach
because there were no two trustee’s.