Report comment

I would like to argue that the “three potential arguments” in your article are unsustainable.

Argument (1): Under section 29 LRA 2002, the registration of a disposition for valuable consideration “has the effect of postponing [unprotected interests such as CRL] to the interest under the disposition”. Where the disposition for valuable consideration is a freehold transfer, the interest under the disposition is the freehold. Hence, the unprotected CRL is postponed to the freehold. That is the same as saying that the interest is void, for good, as against the freehold.

Argument (2): If a purchaser, with the benefit of an official search applies to register a transfer, the application to register the transfer is, under section 72(1) LRA 2002, “protected” if (a) it is one to which a priority period relates, and (b) it is made before the end of that period. Section 72(2) LRA 2002 then says that: “Where an application for an entry in the register is protected, any entry made in the register during the priority period relating to the application is postponed to any entry made in pursuance of it.” So, if a PCC attempts to register a notice to protect CRL against the title during the priority period, the entry made on the day list to note the CRL is postponed to the interest under the purchaser’s transfer. The PCC has lost priority. This is subject to registration being applied for within time. The same can be said for an attempt to register manorial rights during that time.

Argument (3): Losing priority involves losing priority to another interest. If the other interest is the freehold, the loss of priority cleans the title. As above, under section 29 LRA 2002, the registration of a disposition for valuable consideration “has the effect of postponing [an unprotected CRL] to the interest under the disposition”. CRL is not postponed to a person, such as a buyer or a lender. It is postponed to an interest. Where the disposition for valuable consideration is a freehold transfer, the interest under the disposition is the freehold. Hence, the unprotected interest is postponed to the freehold. CRL would be void, for good, as against the freehold.

It would be helpful if the Land Registry would adopt a more legalistic and less administrative approach to the registration of UN1s, and deny registration where priority has clearly been lost.