Chapter 16 Self-test questions

. Rectification of the Register of Title is defined by the Land Registration Act 2002 in what terms?

Any correction of any mistake made by the registry.

Any change made to the register, whatever the circumstances.

Any change to the register which prejudicially affects a registered proprietor who is in possession.

Any correction of any mistake which prejudicially affects the title of a registered proprietor.

. In 1982, Larry conveyed Greyacre to Edward. The area was not an area of compulsory registration; indeed Edward negligently allowed Larry to keep possession of the title deeds. Edward visited Greyacre about once a year, but otherwise has allowed the land to become derelict. The land is not even fenced. Three months ago, Larry 'sold' Greyacre to Frank. Frank has become first registered proprietor with absolute title. He has tidied the land up, got planning permission to build a block of apartments, and building work is about to start. Who is the legal owner of Greyacre?

Larry. Because he retained the deeds from 1982 until recently.

Edward, because where there is 'double conveyancing', the first purchaser always gets legal title.

Frank, but only because he is in adverse possession.

Frank, because he is registered proprietor and the registered proprietor is always legal owner, even if there is a possible rectification claim against him.

. Scenario as in previous question. Edward has just paid his annual visit. He applies for rectification of the register. What does the judge decide on the rectification issue?

Edward was the owner of the land who has been deprived of his rights by a mistake at the Registry; he therefore has an automatic right to rectification.

Edward's rights were an overriding interest by virtue of actual occupation, and therefore he is entitled to rectification.

Rectification will be refused under Schedule 4 para 6, Land Registration Act 2002.

Rectification should be granted, as at times of economic uncertainty, a long-term owner should not be deprived of his land.

. In 2016, Jim bought Blackacre, a property which he thought included Grey Strip. Jim became registered proprietor of Blackacre, including Grey Strip.
Had either Jim or the Land Registry carefully studied the plans of Blackacre, they would have found that Grey Strip was really part of Whiteacre. (The owners of Whiteacre make no use of Grey Strip except for occasional car parking.)
The error is discovered in 2020, and the Register is rectified in January 2021: Grey Strip is registered as part of Whiteacre. Jim seeks indemnity from the Land Registry. What is the result?

Jim gets no indemnity because his fault was the sole cause of the error. Schedule 8 para 5(5), Land Registration Act 2002 applied.

Jim gets full indemnity at January 2021 values.

Jim gets indemnity based on January 2021 values, but reduced because of his lack of proper care, which contributed to the error.

Jim gets indemnity based on the value at the date of the original error (2016).

. In January 2012, Fabrizio became first registered proprietor of Eastacre. The registration included Centre Strip. This should not have happened because Centre Strip is really part of Westacre. A previous owner of Westacre had carelessly built a boundary fence in the wrong place, hence the confusion.
In January 2020, Kofi buys Eastacre (which includes Centre Strip). In a conversation between Kofi and the current owners of Westacre in March 2020, they discover the problem over the boundary and Centre Strip.
In March 2021, a Judge rejects an application by Harry for rectification (cf Epps v Esso), and is now considering awarding indemnity to Harry.
What should the judge decide?

Refuse all indemnity as the claim is out of time. The error happened in 2012 and more than six years have lapsed.

Award indemnity on the basis of the value of Centre Strip in March 2020 (the date the error was discovered).

Award indemnity on the basis of the value of Centre Strip in January 2012 (the date the error occurred).

Award indemnity on the basis of the value of Centre Strip in March 2021 (the date of the court hearing).

. Mr Justice Smith is hearing the case of 139 Blogtown High Street. The facts of the case are (amazingly) a carbon copy of 139 Deptford High Street, except that Mr Justice Smith makes an express finding that the new owners of no.139 (the defendants to the rectification claim) are not at fault in any way. (For the other facts, see 16.2.2) ('The Railway' (the claimants for rectification) will be Network Rail Ltd.) What does Mr Justice Smith decide on the rectification claim?

Rectification should be granted, as the defendants – albeit without any fault – had submitted inaccurate documents.

Rectification should be granted, as Network Rail is an impoverished quasi-public body which should not be deprived of its assets.

Rectification is refused, applying Schedule 4 para 6 LRA 2002

Rectification should be granted, as 'the Railway' were in occupation of the disputed land.

Quiz Content