Baxter v Mannion (2011) CA - Registered proprietor failed to hand in form declaring objection in time (he planned to but being referred to a different solicitor and family misfortunes distracted him) and adverse possessor became owner. Court rejected argument that this did not fall within 'correcting a mistake': Parliament can't have intended someone to be able to lose out on property for want of a form. Note: If have time, look into this and see whether it's expressly distinguished from a case where he had no intention ever to hand it in and then went back on the intention (probably is...)
Swift 1st Ltd v Chief Land Registrar (2015) CA - The 'deeming provision' in Paragraph 1(2)(b) of Schedule 8 'trumps' the proprietor's overriding interest, meaning that they can claim indemnity (rejects the argument that overriding interest means that the alteration would not be prejudicial and hence not 'rectification'). Lord Patten noted that this is problematic and ought to be reviewed.
Gold Harp Properties v MacLeod (2015) CA - Clarifies reference in legislation for changing the priority of an interest 'for the future'. The effect of the legislation is that the power of the court of Registrar is not limited to restoring an interest to the register, but 'extends' to changing what would otherwise be the priority between it and another interest - in other words, to giving it the priority which it should have had but for the mistake. Also, 'exceptional circumstances' was argued and rejected: delayed claim for rectification will only be 'exceptional circumstance' if it gives rise to substantial identifiable prejudice; the fact that Gold Harp's loss if rectification ordered would clearly have been greater for the claimaints if not was not a sufficient reason. Was not established that planning permission was not available, and could have come to a deal. Judgements of this kind were matters for the trial judge. Far from the sort of case which can be said on appeal to be wrong.
Comments
No comments have yet been made