Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
In its Third Report on Land Registration LC No.158 (1987) the Law Commission stated
that the class of unregistered rights that should bind a purchaser should be as narrow
as possible and should only apply to rights where it was either not reasonable to
expect or not sensible to require any entry on register.
To what extent has Schedule 3 of the Land Registration Act 2002 succeeded in this aim?
ANSWER
This question is simply asking whether has Schedule 3 LRA 2002 successfully
reduced the numbers of unregistered interests which override and that they are only
applicable to situation where such interests would be unreasonable or not sensible for
them to be registered. A true understanding and analysis of the existence of such
interests during the era of LRA 1925 and LRA 2002 are required in order to address this
question on point.
It is no surprise that overriding interests attracted so much criticism since the
enactment of the Land Registration Act 1925. The LRA 1925 was founded on 3
important principlesthe mirror principle, the curtain principle, the insurance principle
with the intention of regulating the transfer, use and enjoyment of land to make land
registration easy, safe and efficient. The fact that overriding interests still very much
kicking and alive is, as Martin Dixon in his book Modern Land Law, 9th Edition (2014)
puts it, [a detraction] from the integrity of the register as a mirror of the legal status of
land. The mirror principle encapsulates the idea that the register should reflect the
totality of the rights and interests concerning a title of registered land (Dixon, 2014). This
means an inspection of the register by the purchaser should reveal all the estates and
the interests in the land but with overriding interest not reflected in the register, a
purchaser will not know about their existence and would only discover them when they
are claimed by the respective interest holder. David J. Hayton in his book Registered
Land (Modern Legal Studies), described the category of overriding interests provided
under section 70(1)(g) LRA 1925 as a cavernous crack in this mirror principle.
Dixon (2014) also pointed out that Schedule 3 LRA 2002 was intended to not just
replace section 70(1) LRA 1925 but also to eliminate undiscoverable overriding
interests. Schedule 3 Para 1 LRA 2002 provides that a legal lease originally granted for
seven years or less will override a registered disposition. Under the old section 70(1)(k)
LRA 1925, any lease granted for a term of 21 years or less was an overriding interest
1
So why would interests capable of overriding a registered proprietor still exist after
an attempt of modernising the law governing land registration through the enactment of
LRA 2002? The Law Commission considered abolishing the category of overriding
interests altogether, but it soon became apparent that this was neither feasible nor
desirable. Dixon (2014) pointed out that their very existence was a result of their social
and economic importance is such that, as a class, they cannot be dispensed with. The
only thing the LRA 2002 can do is to reduce their impact, redefine their scope, reduce
their number and encourage their entry on the register. Therefore, it can be said that
Schedule 3 LRA 2002 had indeed achieve its aim.