Reform of land registration

The Land Registration Act 2002 sought to revolutionise conveyancing through three interlocking reforms: implementing electronic conveyancing with simultaneity (ss 91-95), maximising the mirror principle by narrowing overriding interests (Schs 1 and 3), and enhancing the insurance principle through refined rectification and indemnity rules (Schs 4 and 8). The Act promised that the register would become the sole source of title information, eliminating traditional conveyancing inquiries. Yet this revolution remains incomplete: e-conveyancing was suspended in 2011 after £140 million expenditure, overriding interests persist under Schedule 3 (particularly actual occupation and prescriptive easements), and only 87% of land is registered. The reform's central tension lies between achieving certainty through comprehensive registration and protecting vulnerable occupiers who lack formal documentation—a balance the Act strikes through deliberate incrementalism rather than radical transformation.

Malory Enterprises Ltd v Cheshire Homes (UK) Ltd [2002] Ch 216: Occupation through an agent or licensee can constitute actual occupation under s 70(1)(g) LRA 1925 if the occupier retains control. This 'occupation by projection' principle influenced the drafting of Schedule 3, para 2 LRA 2002, confirming that indirect occupation suffices.

Link Lending Ltd v Bustard [2010] EWCA Civ 424: A vulnerable proprietor involuntarily detained elsewhere, but intending to return home and visiting regularly, can remain "in actual occupation" under Sch 3, para 2 LRA 2002. Sets out the factors—permanence and continuity of presence, intention, and the length of and reason for absence—governing actual occupation; a key 2002 reform distinguishing mere 'alteration' from prejudicial 'rectification'.

Swift 1st Ltd v Chief Land Registrar [2015] EWCA Civ 330: The registrar's refusal to rectify against a fraudulent disponee constitutes a 'mistake' triggering indemnity under Schedule 8. Clarifies that 'mistake' includes bringing about any state of affairs that ought not to exist, placing fraud risk on the Land Registry rather than innocent purchasers.

Fitzwilliam v Richall Holdings Services Ltd [2013] EWHC 86 (Ch): Options to purchase cannot be overriding interests under Schedule 3, para 2 if registrable as notices. Reinforces the policy that documentary interests must be protected by registration, reserving overriding status for informal family arrangements.

Courts apply the 2002 reforms through a hierarchical analysis. First, determine whether dealing with first registration (Schedule 1) or registered dispositions (Schedule 3) for overriding interests. Second, for rectification claims, distinguish alteration (non-prejudicial corrections) from rectification (prejudicial corrections favouring another claimant). Against proprietors in possession, rectification requires meeting the 'just' threshold under Schedule 4, para 3(3). Third, assess indemnity under Schedule 8: identify the 'mistake' (broadly construed per Swift 1st), then check exceptions—no indemnity for claimant's fraud or lack of proper care (objective standard per Paton v Todd). For overriding interests, test actual occupation under Schedule 3, para 2: obvious on inspection (para 2(b)), not registrable or disclosed on inquiry (para 2(c)(i)). The registration gap persists: disponees hold only equitable interests until registration completes, creating priority risks that s 29 protects against only post-registration.

Students wrongly state the 2002 Act 'introduced' e-conveyancing—it merely enables it via unimplemented ss 91-95. Many conflate 'alteration' with 'rectification': only rectification prejudices the proprietor and triggers indemnity. Schedule 1 (first registration) differs from Schedule 3 (registered dispositions)—identify which applies. Not all occupation creates overriding interests: Schedule 3, para 2(c)(i) excludes registrable interests not disclosed on inquiry. 'Mistake' under Schedule 8 is broad but indemnity isn't automatic—lack of proper care defeats claims. The registration gap remains because simultaneity requires operational e-conveyancing. Avoid uncritically repeating Law Commission rhetoric about 'revolution'—acknowledge the gap between ambition and implementation.