Mistakes, mispleading and overreaching: understanding title registration and correcting the register

M. Dixon
{"title":"Mistakes, mispleading and overreaching: understanding title registration and correcting the register","authors":"M. Dixon","doi":"10.1108/jppel-11-2021-0053","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThe purpose of this paper is to analyse whether title to land is secure in England and Wales when registered under the Land Registration Act (LRA) 2002, in particular when a title is registered, where there has been a mistake and how that connects with the doctrine of overreaching.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThis paper analyses the reported judgements, with particular emphasis on the decision in Knight v Fernley (2021).\n\n\nFindings\nThis paper explores the concepts of “mistake” and “overreaching” and concludes that LRA 2002 provides a complex, but complete answer to concerns about the application of these doctrines.\n\n\nPractical implications\nThis paper will encourage certainty in the judicial decision-making process when “mistakes” occur in the land register. It will contribute to the resolution of difficult, and current, controversies.\n\n\nSocial implications\nTo enable legal advisers to be clear in their obligations and the advice they give to clients, and to further a better understanding of of title registration in England and Wales.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThe LRA 2002 replaces registration of title with title by registration. The real force of this is only now being realised and there are few reported judgements, and less consistency, working out what this means in practice. There are no other comments on this critical case, even though it helps elucidate the circumstances in which the title register may be altered.\n","PeriodicalId":41184,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Property Planning and Environmental Law","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Property Planning and Environmental Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jppel-11-2021-0053","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyse whether title to land is secure in England and Wales when registered under the Land Registration Act (LRA) 2002, in particular when a title is registered, where there has been a mistake and how that connects with the doctrine of overreaching. Design/methodology/approach This paper analyses the reported judgements, with particular emphasis on the decision in Knight v Fernley (2021). Findings This paper explores the concepts of “mistake” and “overreaching” and concludes that LRA 2002 provides a complex, but complete answer to concerns about the application of these doctrines. Practical implications This paper will encourage certainty in the judicial decision-making process when “mistakes” occur in the land register. It will contribute to the resolution of difficult, and current, controversies. Social implications To enable legal advisers to be clear in their obligations and the advice they give to clients, and to further a better understanding of of title registration in England and Wales. Originality/value The LRA 2002 replaces registration of title with title by registration. The real force of this is only now being realised and there are few reported judgements, and less consistency, working out what this means in practice. There are no other comments on this critical case, even though it helps elucidate the circumstances in which the title register may be altered.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
错误,错诉和越权:理解产权登记和更正登记
本文的目的是分析根据2002年《土地登记法》(LRA)注册时,英格兰和威尔士的土地所有权是否安全,特别是当所有权注册时,哪里出现了错误,以及这与越权原则有何联系。设计/方法/方法本文分析了报告的判断,特别强调了Knight v Fernley(2021)的决定。本文探讨了“错误”和“越界”的概念,并得出结论,2002年的LRA对这些理论的应用提供了一个复杂但完整的答案。实际意义本文将鼓励在土地登记册中出现“错误”时,司法决策过程中的确定性。这将有助于解决当前棘手的争议。社会影响使法律顾问能够明确自己的义务和向客户提供的建议,并进一步更好地了解英格兰和威尔士的业权注册。原创性/价值《2002年业权法》以注册业权取代业权注册。它的真正力量现在才被意识到,而且很少有报道的判断,更少的一致性,来解决这在实践中的意义。对这一关键案件没有其他评论,尽管它有助于阐明业权登记册可能被改变的情况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5
期刊最新文献
The absurdity of the modern law of town and village greens Legal framework of sustainable construction procurement to prevent land degradation: comparison between Indonesia, Singapore and Thailand Can community land trust models work in Peru? Researching community-based land tenure models for affordable housing “From the lease’s point of view”: the role of tied leases in shaping the UK pub sector Redeveloping the compact city: the challenges of strata collective sales
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1