The legal implication ascertain to the transfer of property rights and registration of land demands for adherence to the statute land laws in order to establish boundaries and legal rights to the tenants and owners. The transparency and privilege to rights on land requires the scrutiny of relevant statute for granting the party interests and assure enforceability over purchasers with equitability to the third parties involved. The objective of this paper is to analyze the scenario of Maria, who purchased a house from Richard, the owner. The house was legally registered for entitlement to Maria, however, following purchase process; Maria learns about legal issues pertaining to the right on property as claimed by Andrew, Rita and Syed. The paper will evaluate the party interests and rights in context of legal statute to device appropriate suggestions to Maria for purchased and registered land.
As per the legal context, the definition in regard to the ownership of landjustifies and provides remedy through the scrutiny of facts and potential rights and privileged to the entitled parties. The definition of land denotes of the surface, location, building or the real estate property held with the provision of tenancy and other extensive significances for the benefits and equity for mines, minerals, tenancy rights and other formalities . According to the English Land Law the most apparent prevailing issue in protecting the property interests entails for the reconciliation through effective scrutiny to measure enforceable claims and injectparty rights and interests to safeguard property rights .
Part – A
The empirical view of the jurisdiction in regard to the common law draws the perspective for identification of appropriate property right and abstract entitlement to impose the right for direct control in recognition to possession. Throughout the history of English legislation, lawyers and judges have attempted to apply verified modalities in accordance to the English land law for supervisory injunction of authority and right to the entitled inheritors and owners . This provision is detailed in Land Registration Act of 2002 .29(2) in order to connect the purposes for the purchaser to the entitlement of the property . Consequently, this generates liability on part of the owner to compensate the registrationinterest, section 3 overriding interest and interest for the registrationsubsequent to notice or restriction on the owner .
Property And Equitable Interests
The case scenario of Maria entails the purchase of a house made from Richard through registration process. However, the legal entitlement of the property is confined to the issues of third parties; Andrew, Rita and Syed, which questions the acquisition of rights on the land and its privilege for Maria.
Firstly, examining the property interests of Andrew who tends to be the partner of Richard and contributed to the purchase price of the house initially with Richard about one third of the price. However, Andrew wasn’t entitled to the registration, which remained solely in the name of Richard. Andrew’s interest in the property is subject to gift or the loan for involvement in the property rights with Richard. In understanding the application of Law of Property Act of 1925; the contribution of parties in the acquisition price of the house; the contribution would be held subject to the mutual consent and evidence of the both parties, proportionate to the equity interest .
The contribution on part of Andrew will be considered as the equity expressing the declaration of mutual trust between Richard and himself. Consequently, the doctrine of property entails for the proprietary estoppels and grant of equity interest as denoted in Dyer v Dyer . Moreover, the Court of Appeal also contended to propose a balance sheet method for proportionate the price contributed in contrast to the equitable interests in accordance to the family asset method . However, the partnership on Richard and Andrews remains to be ambiguouswith aspect to family relation or acquaintance.
In case if the partnership between Richard and Andrew is proven with disclosure of family relation, the equitable interest entitled to Andrew may bind Maria for property interests to Andrew. In considering the continuity of stay of Andrew at the home, he had been away to Singapore for the last four months, however, this provides basis for consideration of equity rights.
Since Law of Registration Act 2002 recognizes the duty of occupation supplemental to the entitlement of property rights and registration with obligation of override interest and notice. Section 2 and section 3 emphasize on the entitlement of property along with the duty of occupation binding owner . In case of Maria, interests of Andrew in property may not be overridden, even if the occupational interests were not disclosed by Richard prior the registration and purchase of house. Subsequently, Maria is bound to the Andrew’s interest with subject to appropriate evidence.
The attempt of English law in expressing the trust dealing with the equitable interest on the property; the evaluation of the joint tenants is revolves around the financial contributions for the preexisting terms of settlement. For instance, in Goodman v Gallant the conveyance of the property was held subject to the breakup of the partners for which the decisive elements in the court of Slade L J remained confined to rectification for the declaration of trust based on the property proceedings of sales and the financial contribution for which the Court of Appeal granted interest in the property to wife equally with her husband .
English law secures the rightful equity between valid parties as denoted by Abbey National v Moss , for the partnership of a mother and daughter in transferred property to share the interests for lifetime. However, daughter took out the mortgage amount without consent of her mother, consequent to default payments and selling of the property.The preliminary details as to the occupational interest, transaction and date of registration were considered by the Court of Appeal advised the impact of contract between the commercial parties . The idea of compacting the constructive trust and propriety estoppels is secured in English law as illustrated in Lloyds Bank v Rosset for application of section 15.3 for mutual intent of the parties in commercial contracts providing the basis of successful equitable property rights as per the financial proportion respectively.
Secondly, the claims raised by neighbor Rita denotes of an agreement with Richard to grant her lifetime access through the garden of Richard’s house to provide her shortcut to the woods. The granting of access to the neighbor tends to an easement agreement between Richard and Rita. As per the section 1(2) Law of Property Rights 1925; the privilege to use or gain access to the land can be provided in exchange of financial fee with absolute terms and years of possession . However, the complication in this case scenario arises for the lack of disclosure of previous occupational interests pertained to the purchase of house. On contrary, as stated by Lord Brougham; the provision for an easement is devoted to the right on use and can’t be created for the desire and caprice of the owner .
As denoted by Lord Evershed M R in Re Ellenborough Park (1956) Ch 131 ; that the essential characteristics for application of an easement constitutes of the prevalence of a dominant tenement to grant the right of property usage and gain the benefits attached on priority. This entitlement leads to greater benefits with emphasize on the rights for claimants, such as in Hill v Tupper (1863) the rights were held in entitlement of personal benefit and exclusive privilege to the pleasure boats.
In case of Rita, the rights justified in the easement with Richard are valid, if the valuable consideration is implied through registration under the Commons Registration Act 1965 , the evident for consent of the purchaser and purchase in this case both Richard and Rita is essential and mandate to reasonable inspection of the land. Furthermore, the validation of the easement also requires use by the dominate tenement within last one year of disposition or issue raised. Hence, if Rita’s easement contract is registered, Maria will be bound property interest for interest overriding as per the Law of Registration Act 2002 section 3 . Apart from essential characteristics of the easement, Rita would also need to administer the rights of privacy to the servient tenement such as Maria, which would enable Maria to restrict the exceeding and unduly potential rights to Rita and avoid duty of expenditure with the continuous usage of the pathway, in accordance to section. 52 of Law of the Property Act 1925 .
In Duke of Westminster v Guild the rights to tenant for using drainage running through neighbor’s land were granted with the condition for alleviating the obligation of the landlord for compensating repair expenditure. The requirement for the servient tenementis granted in expressly deed for the obligation to right of privacy and compensation to the repairs and damages. Similarly, in Palmer v Bowman the English Court of Appeal recognized the easement for the natural water flowing across the neighbor’s land. Despites odds and common concerns on the interest of occupation and property rights; the English judiciary has remained commendable resort for commercial parties to protect ownership rights .
Previous cases have denoted the evidence of equity interests such as in Celsteel Ltd v Alton House Holdings Ltd ; for holding the overriding interests. In Webb v Pollmount the court also protected the 7 year lease on the basis of occupational interests of the tenant under the section 70(1). Similarly, in Jackson v Mulvaney in 2003 the plaintiff’s claims argued the right to use to communal garden for the purpose of business activities and cultivation of flower beds. The court declared the right to joint ownership and usage, until the right to privacy is not invaded by the other party .
The critical element in declaring the parameters of rights and property interest is depends on the extent to which both the parties adhere to theterms of easement agreement.The assessment of on part of the court is based on evaluating the frequency of land usage by the servient owners as conducted in Copeland v Greenhalf and Wright v Macadam . According to the judge Paul Q C the implication existing in regard to the exclusive usage invokes requirement for the judiciary to critically assess requirements in the cases .
Lastly, as for the claims made by Syed who tends to have a settlement with Richard for five-year purchase option in return of a lease, the transfer of the legal interest is required through the appropriate registration in compliance with the section 54 of Law of Property Act 1925 in United Kingdom . Since the settlement took place between Richard and Syed is not based on legal contract, Maria may need to inspect if the deed is registered since a legal lease of duration with more than three years requires obligation to register. In addition, other factors to consider in overriding interests of the lease must ensure the best optimal rent or value made in agreement which can be granted orally by the owner .
Implications Of Unregistered Land
The objective for enactment of the Law of Registration Act 2002 enables safeguarding the rights and benefits along with other legal counterparts on the property for the buyers and owners. The LRA enactment is supplemental to the necessary framework for land possession and regulation of ownership interests . One of the major advantage to Maria for registration of the house, the HM land registry would also protect the loss and reimbursement of the remedy caused due to issues in equitable interests for rectification and payment of indemnity to the claimant .
Since Maria has already been dealing with the issue of overriding interest of the third parties; the acquisition of the property through informal unregistered process would multiply the legal litigations for fraudulent and unduly occupancy of the land as entailed in the section 71 of Law of Registration Act 1925 . As evident in J. A. Pye Oxford Ltd v Graham (2000) ; the cause of the registration under LRA restricts the chances of third party overridden interest. Moreover, the mandatory nature of the registration for land acquisition also denotes of protection of rights under the section 96, to assure the balance in squatter’s claims and owner’s rights on the land. The fundamental aim of the registration underpins the legalities potential as per the part 8 of LRA for removing the gaps between the overridden interests and the registration entitlement to prohibit hereditary implications and administering transparency over the property rights .
Part – B
Contemporary cases have denoted of inconsistencies in the complex circumstances for English Common Law to effectively make remedy to the claimants . Systematic efforts have been made since orthodox period to enforce equitable principles and asset approach in evaluating claims such as in Pettitt v Pettitt (1970) for extending the beneficial entitlements to both spouses based on their proportion of financial contribution and equity interest. With registration of the land entitlement; the claims for third parties are suppressed on the basis of determined standing and actual occupation. Apart from ownership protection the legal registration also enables disclosing the third parties right through legal assistance prior purchase and registration of the land is processed . The classification of the land interest rights as per the English statute of land law entails for the legal and equitable quality of benefits and privilege to the entitled owners through the mechanism based on three provisions in Law of Registration Act 2002 for the obligation of registration fees or mortgage as per the section of 25 and 27 for binding the purchaser to compensate the amount for mortgage prior proceeding with sales intention .
This priority will not be valid for unregistered property, hence restricting the legal capacity to protect claim on property. Secondly, statute has also devices provision to protect the overriding interests by the third parties or the transferee of the land. Section 11, 12 and 29 entails the validity of equitable interest with respect to registered title . This would enable protecting the equitable right and alleviating the restrictions of lawful enjoyment and use of the land. Lastly, the alleviation of minor interests in Law of Registration Act 2002 has enabled prioritizing the purchaser who registered with appropriate entitlement as per the section 1 and 3 . Furthermore, the enforceable equity interests tends to remain governed with the doctrine of notice in case the property deferred to have registered entitlement as per the section 8 -166.
Despite progressive changes to the statute of LRA 2002; there have been notable inconsistencies as to the criterion and equity approach optimized by English court in contemporary cases such as Kling v Keston where the claimant’s unregistered right to the use garage was injected over the defendant having lease registered with duration of 99 years. Similarly, inconsistency is evident in William & Glyn’s Bank v Boland for dispute among mortgagee and purchaser in relation to their right of equity. The plaintiff wife claimed the overriding interest on the basis of trust for sale, considering her marriage with the spouse. In this regard, the Court of Appeal under Nicholls L J realized the inconsistencies and restriction of the LRA 1925 for analyzing the gap between the rights before purchase and after registration with transfer of property .
In order to extend foresee ability of equity interest, the enactment of Law of Registration 2002 also provides extensive provisions for the arrangement of easements, profits realized on property, short-term lease and duty of occupation for the property rights granted to the third parties. As stated by the English Law Commission the prevalence of the inconsistencies has been given the vital focus in reconsiderations of Law of Registration Act 2002 .In Ling Lending Ltd v Hussain and another ; the English court conceptualized the interest in occupation through the binding the registration as a single test measure for determining the property interests. In addition, the major factors considered for the parties were based on the duration of occupancy, intentions of the parties and nature of property for injection of property interests. On contrary, Lord Oliver L J in Abbey National v Cann emphasized on the limitations administered with enactment of Law of Registration 2002 for the change in Section 3 for overriding interests restricted to the legal leases for not more than seven years .
However, extensive amount of cases have been remained confined to the old provisions due to connotation and compliance with the Common Law of United Kingdom, as reflected in Ferrishurst v Wallcite , Malory Enterprise v Cheshire Home and Webb v Pollmount . Therefore, the limitations restricting the effective deployment and protection of equitable interests remains subject to the degree of permanence, evidence, registration evidence and the actual occupation for sanctioning the countervailing right and interests on the property.
- HM Revenue & Customs(2008). Guide book of land registration and third party rights Land Registry Practice guide 62 Nov 2008 edition.
- Judith Bray & Hodder Arnold. (2008). Unlocking Land Law. Second Edition.
- Kevin Gray &Susan, (2009). Elements of Land Law. Oxford University. Fifth Edition; Press.
- Martin Dixson, (2012). Modern land law (12th, Routledge, England) 28.
- Rojer J Smith, (2011). Property Law. 7th ed., Pearson education Ltd, England.