Walker & Anor v Burton & Anor

Walker & Anor v Burton & Anor

The Court of Appeal held that the Deputy Adjudicator and Deputy Judge were correct in law to refuse rectification of the Fell registration. The statutory protection for registered proprietors in possession applied, and the appellants failed to establish lack of care or injustice sufficient to override that protection. The consequential nature of the mistake did not disapply the statutory factors. The Crown's reserved position and lack of intervention were not determinative.

Parties
Appellant: Eric Walker; Appellant: Carole Scott; Respondent: Peter Burton; Respondent: Susan Bamford
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal, Court of Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Rectification of Land Register, Manorial Rights, Incorporeal Hereditaments, Adverse Possession, Mistaken Registration, Statutory Interpretation
Property Law Land Registration Rectification of Land Register Manorial Rights Incorporeal Hereditaments Adverse Possession Mistaken Registration Statutory Interpretation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eric Walker

Appellant

Carole Scott

Appellant

Peter Burton

Respondent

Susan Bamford

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Second Appeal, Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the mistaken registration of Ireby Fell as land should be rectified by closing the register
  2. 2 Whether lack of care by the Burtons caused or contributed to the mistaken registration
  3. 3 Whether it would be unjust not to correct the mistake in registration of the Fell

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the Deputy Adjudicator and Deputy Judge were correct in law to refuse rectification of the Fell registration. The statutory protection for registered proprietors in possession applied, and the appellants failed to establish lack of care or injustice sufficient to override that protection. The consequential nature of the mistake did not disapply the statutory factors. The Crown's reserved position and lack of intervention were not determinative.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed