C Bevan ‘Overriding and Over-Extended? Actual Occupation: A Call to Orthodoxy’ [2016] Conv. 104, 117

Looks at the concept of actual occupation under Schedule 3 para 2. It is critical of the expansive judicial approach to the concept, which has emerged through a piecemeal interpretation, where the courts have shown a willingness to engage in subjective assessments. The author argues in favour of a more tightly defined and less subjective approach, which would be more in line with the overall aim of the registered land system.

B Bogusz ‘The Relevance of “Intentions and Wishes” to Determine Actual Occupation: A Sea Change in Judicial Thinking?’ [2014] Conv. 27, 27-32

Assesses the extent to which a court takes into account subjective intentions and wishes when considering whether actual occupation can be found. How have the courts balanced objective and subjective factors when making this assessment?

R Smith ‘The role of registration in modern land law’ Land Law: Issues, Debates and Policy, L Tee (Willan 2002) 29 - 63

Investigates the role of registration in modern land law in particular the way in which it makes the transfer of land more efficient, the way it affects priority rules and, finally, how it acts as a catalyst for radical reform of property principles.

B Bogusz ‘Defining the scope of actual occupation under the LRA 2002’ 2011 75 Conv. 268

Considers the operation of Schedule 3 para 2 both in terms of its application and definition. Particular focus is given to the concept of actual occupation and the flexibility in interpreting what it means, guided by a discussion of the decisions in the cases of Thompson v Foy [2009] and Link Lending Ltd v Bustard [2010].

G Owen ‘A New Model for Overreaching – Some Historical Inspiration’ [2015] Conv. 226

Calls for the reform to the concept of overreaching.

Martin Dixon; ‘Rectification and Priority: Further skirmishes in the Land Registration war’ LQR 2015, 131 (April) 207-213

Looking at the availability of rectification and if retrospective alterations will alter the priorities of the register following the decision in Macleod v Gold Harp Properties [2014] EWCA Civ 1084