Walker & Ors v Burton & Anor

Walker & Ors v Burton & Anor

The Respondents' registration as proprietors of the Fell was a mistake, but they were in possession, acted with proper care, and neither the Crown nor Duchy objected; it would not be unjust to leave the register unaltered, so the application to close the Fell Title was rightly dismissed.

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
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Land Registry Adjudicator
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Rectification of Land Register, Manorial Title, Adverse Possession, Mistaken Registration, Proprietary Estoppel, Conveyancing Standards
Property Law Land Registration Rectification of Land Register Manorial Title Adverse Possession Mistaken Registration Proprietary Estoppel Conveyancing Standards

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 6 Authorities cited 23 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

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Land Registry Adjudicator

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the registration of the Fell Title in favour of the Respondents was a mistake under Schedule 4 of the Land Registration Act 2002
  2. 2 Whether the Respondents were in possession of the Fell at material times
  3. 3 Whether lack of proper care by the Respondents or their solicitors caused or substantially contributed to the mistaken registration

Ratio Decidendi

The Respondents' registration as proprietors of the Fell was a mistake, but they were in possession, acted with proper care, and neither the Crown nor Duchy objected; it would not be unjust to leave the register unaltered, so the application to close the Fell Title was rightly dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Description of Respondents in the Fell Title as 'Lord of the Manor of Ireby' to be removed
  • Application to close the Fell Title cancelled