Kingsalton Ltd & Anor v Thames Water Developments Ltd & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 20 (19 January 2001)

Kingsalton Ltd & Anor v Thames Water Developments Ltd & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 20 (19 January 2001)

The Court of Appeal held that the Deputy Judge erred in law by not properly recognising that the Defendants were in possession as registered proprietors and by misapplying s.82(3). The discretion to rectify under s.82(1) is unfettered by s.82(3) in court proceedings, but the policy of the Act strongly favours the registered proprietor in possession. On balancing the relevant factors, the court refused rectification, setting aside the order below.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 20
Parties
Respondent: Kingsalton Ltd.; Respondent: Pollock & Searby Ltd.; Appellant: Thames Water Developments Ltd.; Appellant: Westbrook Mill Lane Ltd.; Appellant: Westbrook Property Developments Ltd.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 January 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Order for rectification set aside. Application for rectification dismissed.
Legal Topics
Rectification of Land Register, Registered Proprietor in Possession, Boundary Disputes, Discretion Under Land Registration Act 1925 S.82
Property Law Land Registration Rectification of Land Register Registered Proprietor in Possession Boundary Disputes Discretion Under Land Registration Act 1925 S.82

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kingsalton Ltd.

Respondent

Pollock & Searby Ltd.

Respondent

Thames Water Developments Ltd.

Appellant

Westbrook Mill Lane Ltd.

Appellant

Westbrook Property Developments Ltd.

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Deputy Judge erred in ordering rectification of the land register against registered proprietors in possession under s.82 Land Registration Act 1925.
  2. 2 Whether s.82(3) restricts the court's discretion to order rectification where the registered proprietor is in possession.
  3. 3 What weight should be given to the policy of protecting registered proprietors in possession.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the Deputy Judge erred in law by not properly recognising that the Defendants were in possession as registered proprietors and by misapplying s.82(3). The discretion to rectify under s.82(1) is unfettered by s.82(3) in court proceedings, but the policy of the Act strongly favours the registered proprietor in possession. On balancing the relevant factors, the court refused rectification, setting aside the order below.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Order for rectification set aside. Application for rectification dismissed.

Orders

  • That part of the Deputy Judge's order which ordered rectification of the register in favour of Kingsalton is set aside.
  • Application for rectification is dismissed.