Walker & Ors v Burton & Anor [2012] EWHC 978 (Ch) (17 April 2012)

Walker & Ors v Burton & Anor [2012] EWHC 978 (Ch) (17 April 2012)

The Respondents' registration as proprietors of the Fell was a mistake because they had no title to the Lordship, but as they were in possession of the Fell, had not acted fraudulently or without proper care, and it would not be unjust for them to remain registered, rectification was not justified under Schedule 4, paragraph 6(2) of the Land Registration Act 2002. The Lordship Title was properly closed, but the Fell Title should remain with the Respondents.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 978 (Ch)
Parties
Appellant: Eric Walker; Appellant: Angela Walker; Appellant: Carole Scott (representing herself and the estate of Elizabeth Chamberlin); Appellant: Edward Mills; Appellant: Christopher Balchin; Respondent: Peter Charles Burton; Respondent: Susan Anne Bamford
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Land Registry Adjudicator / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed in respect of the Fell Title; Lordship Title closure upheld.
Legal Topics
Rectification of Land Register, Possession, Mistake in Registration, Manorial Rights, Adverse Possession
Property Law Land Registration Rectification of Land Register Possession Mistake in Registration Manorial Rights Adverse Possession

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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eric Walker

Appellant

Angela Walker

Appellant

Carole Scott (representing herself and the estate of Elizabeth Chamberlin)

Appellant

Edward Mills

Appellant

Christopher Balchin

Appellant

Peter Charles Burton

Respondent

Susan Anne Bamford

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Land Registry Adjudicator / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the registration of the Fell Title in favour of the Respondents was a mistake under the Land Registration Act 2002
  2. 2 Whether the Respondents were in possession of the Fell for the purposes of Schedule 4, paragraph 6(2)
  3. 3 Whether the Respondents or their solicitors caused or contributed to the mistaken registration by lack of proper care

Ratio Decidendi

The Respondents' registration as proprietors of the Fell was a mistake because they had no title to the Lordship, but as they were in possession of the Fell, had not acted fraudulently or without proper care, and it would not be unjust for them to remain registered, rectification was not justified under Schedule 4, paragraph 6(2) of the Land Registration Act 2002. The Lordship Title was properly closed, but the Fell Title should remain with the Respondents.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed in respect of the Fell Title; Lordship Title closure upheld.

Orders

  • The appeal to close the Fell Title is dismissed; the Respondents remain registered as proprietors of the Fell.
  • The closure of the Lordship Title is upheld; the register is to be altered accordingly.