Registered and unregistered title

English land law operates two parallel title systems: registered title under the Land Registration Act 2002 (covering 87% of land) and residual unregistered title under the Land Charges Act 1972. Registered title rests on three principles: the mirror principle (the register should reflect all interests), the curtain principle (beneficial interests remain off-register and are overreached), and the insurance principle (state compensation for errors). Under s.29 LRA 2002, a registered disponee for value takes subject only to registered interests and overriding interests in Schedule 3, free from all others. The system's fundamental tension lies in balancing the aspiration of a complete register against practical necessities like protecting occupiers' rights—hence overriding interests fracture the mirror but serve fairness.

Williams & Glyn's Bank Ltd v Boland [1981] AC 487: Beneficial interest coupled with actual occupation constitutes an overriding interest binding on mortgagees. Established that 'rights' in s.70(1)(g) LRA 1925 (now Sch.3 para.2) includes beneficial interests under trusts—protecting occupiers even where banks rely solely on the register.

City of London Building Society v Flegg [1988] AC 54: Where capital money is paid to two trustees, overreaching occurs and beneficial interests cannot be overriding. Demonstrates overreaching's primacy: proper statutory machinery defeats actual occupation.

Midland Bank Trust Co Ltd v Green [1981] AC 513: Unregistered estate contract is void against purchaser for money/money's worth even if purchaser knows of it. The LCA 1972 operates mechanically—registration trumps notice absolutely.

Abbey National Building Society v Cann [1991] 1 AC 56: No 'scintilla temporis' between purchase and simultaneous charge; purchase-money mortgagee takes free. Protects lenders whose advances enable acquisition.

Link Lending Ltd v Bustard [2010] EWCA Civ 424: Failure to enquire of obvious occupier means their interest remains overriding under Sch.3 para.2. The enquiry exception requires actual enquiry—constructive notice insufficient.

First determine if land is registered (check Land Registry) or unregistered (investigate title deeds). For registered land: (1) Identify the disposition—is it registrable under s.27? (2) Apply s.29 priority: registered disponee for value takes subject only to registered interests and Schedule 3 overriding interests. (3) Check for overriding interests: short leases (≤7 years), actual occupation (was enquiry made? was occupation obvious?), implied/prescriptive legal easements. (4) Consider overreaching if beneficial interests exist—were two trustees paid? For unregistered land: (1) Has the interest been registered as a land charge against the correct name? (2) If not registrable under LCA 1972, apply doctrine of notice. Courts scrutinise actual occupation strictly and interpret the enquiry exception narrowly—mere presence on inspection triggers careful investigation.

Conflating systems: never apply LRA 2002 to unregistered land or vice versa—identify the system first. Overreaching ≠ overriding: overreaching removes beneficial interests; overriding interests bind despite non-registration. Schedule 3 para.2: actual enquiry required, not constructive notice; occupation must be obvious on reasonably careful inspection. Only legal easements can be overriding (not equitable); expressly granted ones need registration. Misreading Cann: applies only to simultaneous purchase/charge, not subsequent mortgages. LCA 1972 searches are name-based: wrong name = charge not discovered but still valid. Section 27 dispositions require registration to operate at law, not just execution.