Land Law and Land Registration Act 2002 - Essay Example

Running head: Land Law Land Law Full [Insert information here] Land Law According to Gray and Gray (2006), the Land Registration Act 2002 is an Act passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom which describes its purpose as an Act to make provision about land registration and for connected purposes. It received the Royal Assent on February 26, 2002. The authors further state that on October 13, 2003, the Land Registration Act 2002 and the Land Registration Rules 2003 came into force, repealing and replacing previous legislation governing land registration, the Land Registration Act 1925, which initialled a different system of land registration. This Act, together with the Rules, regulates the role and practice of HM Land Registry (The 1925 Reforms and Unregistered Land Law, 2006). The Land Registration Act 2002 simplified and modernised the law of land registration. It also makes the register reflect a more accurate picture of a title to land. It is intended to facilitate the introduction of e-conveyancing1. This Act makes some major changes to the law regulating registered land. Specifically, it enables shorter leases to be registered, introduces voluntary land registration, changes the system of protection of third party rights and reforms and modernises the law of adverse possession or squatters' rights. The Land Registration Act has been received with much critical acclaim. It is a work of monumental importance and monumental effort. The Land Registration Act 2002 contains significant new provisions that are directed towards the goal of total registration (Gray and Gray, 2006). 1/The Land Registry e-conveyancing (2006) defined e-conveyancing as the transformation of the current paper-based conveyancing system into electronic form, using electronic documents, requisitions and signatures, meaning, paperless. The programme aims to utilise advances in technology by creating a system that reduces the delay and anxiety which can be experienced in the house buying process. According to the Land Law Legal Essays and Coursework (2005), the register should be a complete and accurate reflection of the state of the title to the land at any given time, and it should be possible to investigate title to land online, with the absolute minimum of additional enquiries and inspections. On the first registration, the registrar awards a grade of title to each registered estate. In the case of freehold estates, one of the following grades of title may be awarded according to section 11 of the Act. The absolute freehold title shows there is nothing dubious about the title. The estate is vested in the proprietor and is subject only to entries on the register and overriding interests. Title does not have to be perfect. If the registrar believes that any defect will "not cause the holding under the title to be disturbed", absolute title will be given - section 9(3) of the Land Registration Act (Land Law Legal Essays and Coursework, 2005). In the possessory freehold title, there is no documentary evidence of title, for example, lost title deeds. Title depends on adverse possession. It conveys no guarantee of title at the time of registration, but subsequent problems, for example forgery of proprietor's signature, will be covered by the guarantee. It can be upgraded into absolute title after being in possession as proprietor for twelve years as mentioned in section 62(1), (4)). In the qualified freehold title, the title is subject to a fundamental defect. There is no guarantee in respect of the specified defect. It may be upgraded to absolute title if registrar is satisfied as to the title (section 62 of the Land Registration Act). On the other hand, in the case of leasehold estates, one of the following grades of title may be awarded according to section 12 of the Act. The absolute leasehold title is the same to absolute freehold except the proprietor is also subject to covenants in the lease. The good leasehold title is the same as absolute leasehold except the right of the landlord to grant the lease is not guaranteed. While the possessory leasehold title is the same as possessory freehold, the qualified leasehold title is the same as qualified freehold. On the other hand, in the protection of disponees, subject to subsection, a person's right to exercise owner's powers in relation to a registered estate or charge is to be taken to be free from any limitation affecting the validity of a disposition (Protection of Disponees, 2001). The subsection does not apply to a limitation reflected by an entry in the register, or imposed by, or under, this Act. The Land Law Legal Essays and Coursework (2005) also mentioned that the protection of the disponees has effect only for the purpose of preventing the title of a disponee being questioned and does not affect the lawfulness of a disposition (Protection of Disponees. 2001). Although it may be the objective to reflect limitations of owners' powers on the register, if a qualification is omitted from the register by mistake, it must be against public policy to legitimise dispositions that legislation has made void. There are restrictions on dispositions by local authorities and by charities. Subsection 3 appears to mean that someone could otherwise acquire a good title. The Bill seeks to protect people who take a transfer of registered land when it is apparently valid on the face of the register. While that is certainly useful, it must be against policy that it should overrule statutory restrictions imposed on particular landowners (Land Law Legal Essays and Coursework, 2005). The register would normally reflect such restrictions, but in practice one has to deal with the cases in which that safeguard falls down. Restrictions are placed on certain disposals by charities, local authorities and registered social landlords. In those cases, it is believed that it is extremely important that human error may be allowed for. In a nutshell, it is wrong to write off a qualification of an owner's powers on the register in the event that the registrar makes a mistake (Land Law Legal Essays and Coursework, 2005). One of the overriding principles on which confidence in the land register is currently based is that the register is conclusive about an owner's powers. This contributes substantially to the ease with which the conveyancing process operates and benefits the economy as a whole. This will become even more important as the fundamental objective of the Bill is achieved. It must be possible to investigate title to land online, with the absolute minimum additional inquiries and inspections. Any limitations on the power of the owner to deal with the land or a charge must be the subject either of entries on the register or of limitations imposed by the Bill itself. That should be the case whether those limitations arise by agreement with third parties or by the imposition of statute (Land Law Legal Essays and Coursework, 2005). If this amendment were made, however, people dealing with any title would need to consider what statutes might impose a limitation on the owner's powers, and then investigate to see if that is the case. That would in turn detract from the completeness and clarity of the register of title in a way that we find unacceptable. That is why the Government prefer the simplification of the existing law effected by the Bill. Under the Bill, any limitation on the owner's powers can be recorded by restriction. This is often done in practice by the Registry automatically where it is apparent that statutory limitations apply. The purpose of these provisions is simply to protect the buyer of the land. They reflect the current law. They strike the right balance between the competing interests that can arise in such situations. They do not prevent the selling owner from being held to account for exceeding his or her authority, nor do they prevent an interested party from applying for a restriction to be entered as a precautionary measure. It is said that "the register of title is broadly intended to operate as a mirror, reflecting to the potential disponee and to any other interested person the totality of the proprietary benefits and burdens which currently affect the land". However, if the requirement of registration is not complied with, the transfer, grant or creation becomes void as regards the transfer, grant or creation of a legal estate (Protection of Disponees, 2001). On the application of subsection, in a case falling within section 4(1)(a) or (b), the title to the legal estate reverts to the transferor who holds it on a bare trust for the transferee, and in a case falling within section 4(1)(c) to (g), the grant or creation has effect as a contract made for valuable consideration to grant or create the legal estate concerned (Protection of Disponees, 2001). If an order under section 6(5)* is made in a case where subsection (1) or Register of Title has already applied, that application of the subsection is to be treated as not having occurred. The possibility of reverter under subsection 1 or Register of Title is to be disregarded for the purposes of determining whether a fee simple is a fee simple absolute. To examine the policy of the 1925 legislation, some of the reforms were concerned to simplify and rationalise the substantive law (e.g. the assimilation of real and personal property law and the reduction in the number of tenures to one form), but the most important, for our purposes, were those designed to simplify conveyancing (The 1925 Reforms and Unregistered Land Law, 2006). The wide variety of rights that may bind land, such as third party rights, makes dealings in land much more complex than dealings in other forms of property and raises the fundamental question of how the law should strike a balance between the interests of third parties and those of purchasers. The 1925 reforms favour the purchaser and simplify 2/ Section 6(5) states that "If on the application of any interested person the registrar is satisfied that there is good reason for doing so, he may by order provide that the period for registration ends on such later date as he may specify in the order". conveyancing by eliminating the need for him or her to make complex inquiries. The policy of the Land Registration Acts 1925 and 2002 was to simplify conveyancing by registering all titles to land in a central register, and the 2002 Act requires registration of title whenever land is transferred or subjected to a first legal mortgage (The 1925 Reforms and Unregistered Land Law, 2006). It is difficult to judge when, if ever, the register of title will be universal, some land is held by the same owner, such as a charity or family trust, for hundreds of years and so its title remains unregistered. The 1925 legislation drastically reduced the number of estates and third party rights that may subsist at law and so reduced the number of interests that automatically bind a purchaser. LPA 1925 section 1(1) provides that the only two estates that may subsist at law are the fee simple absolute in possession (the holder of such an estate is effectively the owner of the land) and the term of years absolute, such as the lease. The scheme of the 1925 legislation was that although a purchaser would be bound by legal interests whether he or she knew of them or not, equitable rights would be either overreachable or registrable (The 1925 Reforms and Unregistered Land Law, 2006). Overreaching is a process by which a purchaser of a legal estate takes it free of pre-existing equitable rights in the land, but the equitable interests do not 'vanish'. They attach instead to the purchase money. Overreachable rights are generally those of a family nature and registrable rights are those of a commercial nature. The legal estate is vested in the trustees of the land and, provided that the purchaser pays the purchase money to at least two trustees, he takes free from the beneficial interests. The beneficial interests are in the proceeds of sale as notionally they always have been. The major reform in 1925 was to impose a statutory trust for sale in all cases of co-ownership and thereby to extend considerably the system of overreaching (The 1925 Reforms and Unregistered Land Law, 2006). This, and the trust of land which has replaced it under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996. Section 2 LPA 1925 provides: (1) A conveyance to a purchaser of a legal estate in land shall overreach any equitable interest or power affecting that estate, whether or not he has notice thereof; (2) Interests which are registrable as land charges cannot be overreached. A commercial interest cannot sensibly shift from the land affected to the proceeds of sale. A family interest can do so since the proceeds of sale can be used to acquire another home. Thus overreaching is a very useful tool for purchasers of legal estates in land, freeing them from fear of hidden or undisclosed equitable interests in the land and thereby assisting the free alienation of land. In theory the owner of the overreached equitable interest should not be disadvantaged, but he may in practice prefer an interest in land to one in money. Further, he or she may receive nothing at all 3. 'Family' interests in land will be overreached, attaching instead to the proceeds of sale, if payment for the land is made to two trustees. This process is a great advantage for purchasers of land, simplifying their side of the conveyancing. As reflected above it is not appropriate to apply the machinery of overreaching to equitable interests of a commercial nature, such as estate contracts, restrictive covenants, and others. Prior to the 1925 reforms such interests were governed by the doctrine of notice, that is, they were binding on the whole world except the bona fide purchaser of a legal estate for value without notice (The 1925 Reforms and Unregistered Land Law, 2006). This involved the purchaser in making inquiries and inspections on the land, and it was in order to obviate the 3/: see State Bank of India v Sood [1997] Ch 276. necessity for such steps to be taken that the system of land charges registration was introduced in 1925. The Land Charges Act 1972, which replaces the Land Charges Act 1925, provides for the registration of certain land charges in the land charges register. The land charges are set out in section 2 of the Act and the most important for our purposes (The 1925 Reforms and Unregistered Land Law, 2006). A land charge is registered against the name of the estate owner whose estate is intended to be affected (Harpum, 1981). The registration of a land charge constitutes actual notice to the whole world, hence protecting the interest even when the land is sold (LPA 1925 section 198). However, if a land charge is not registered before the completion of a purchase, the effect depends on the type of land charge. Thus, an estate contract or a restrictive covenant or an equitable easement will be void for non-registration against a purchaser of a legal estate for money or money's worth whereas a puisne mortgage or a general equitable charge or a spouse's right of occupation of the matrimonial home will be void for non-registration against a purchaser for value of the land or any interest in the land 4. "An unregistered land charge is valid against a person who has received the land as a mere gift" (Harpum, 1981). The dispute between Mr and Mrs Graham and JA Pye (Oxford) Limited is a good example. In 1977, Mr. and Mrs. Grahams were granted a grazing licence by Pye. A series of similar licences was granted also between 1977 and 1983. In 1984 Pye was considering 4/Money's worth' includes anything which is worth money (for example transferring shares or other land to the seller); 'value' is a broader term which means money, money's worth or marriage consideration. In the law applying to registered title, by contrast, marriage consideration is no longer 'value'. developing the land and decided not to renew the licence. However, Mr. and Mrs. Grahams continued to use the land. The Grahams claimed title to the land after twelve years because of their continued adverse possession of the land. The Court of Appeal reversed the decision maintaining that the continuation of the Grahams' use of the land was just that - a continuation of a licence and not actual possession. Pye took the case to the European Court of Human Rights. It complained that it had been deprived of its land by the operation of the United Kingdom rules on adverse possession in a manner incompatible with Article 1. The Court ruled by a majority of four to three that the adverse possession rules in the Land Registration Act 1925 and the Limitation Act 1980 did breach a true owner's rights to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions in that he was deprived of his possessions in a manner which was not in the public interest and was not proportionate. The taking of property without payment of compensation related to its value was only justified in exceptional circumstances. Such circumstances were not present in this case. As the Pye decision involved specific reference to the Land Registration Act 1925 and the Limitation Act 1980 it may not immediately affect unregistered land, however, there is no reason why, if applied more broadly, its rationale should not equally apply to a claim made in respect of unregistered land (The 1925 Reforms and Unregistered Land Law, 2006). In the recent past, Lloyd v Dugdale 5 has decided that a right generated by estoppel qualifies as a property interest capable of binding a successor in title as an overriding interest under s. 70(1)(g) Land Registration Act 1925; 6. 5/ [2001] EWCA Civ 1754, 21 November 2001. 6/ There is little reference to authority, although a similar view is put forward by Mr Lawrence Collins QC (Deputy Judge) in Locabail (UK) Ltd v Bayfield Properties Ltd, Chancery Division Transcript, 9 March 1999, Case no. CH 1997/L/4909. One important aspect of the current legislation changed by the Act is that of "overriding interests". Under the Land Registration Act 1925, these include all the incumbrances, interests, rights and powers which are not entered on the register, but override registered dispositions under the Act. Such interests create a number of problems, since people can find that they have bought estates which are subject to adverse interests which are not be clear from the register, and can be quite difficult to determine. In the Act, the categories of interests which are not registrable appear in two distinct lists, one relevant to first registration of title, the other to dealings with registered land. In each list they will be reduced in scope. The ambit of particular categories will be narrowed, some categories will be abolished altogether, and others will be phased out after ten years (Land Registration Act of 2002 Chapter 9, 2002).. Land Registration Act 2002 (Transitional Provisions) (No 2) Order 2003 (SI 2431) adds a further overriding interest for a transitional period of 10 years in respect of liability to repair the chancel of any church ("Register the changes" by Colby, Dowden, Fenn and Williams - Leases, registration, overriding interests, exempt information documents (Estates Gazette, 6 September 2003, p107). Section 70(1)(g) of the Land Registration Act 1925 refers to the rights of every person in actual occupation of the land or in receipt of the rents and profits thereof . In this case the person claiming an overriding interest had a beneficial interest in the property under a bare trust and was receiving weekly payments under a tenancy by estoppel. The beneficial interest did not fall within the definition of land in s3(viii) and the sums payable under the tenancy by estoppel were not rent issuing out of or charged upon land within the definition of rent in s3(xxv) (Chapters 9 para 100 and 12 para 238 Kevin and Susan Gray: Elements of Land Law, Fourth Edition). There was therefore no receipt of rents within s70(1)(g) and no overriding interest 7 (UCB Group Ltd v Hedworth [2002] EWCA 708; [2002] 46 EG 200). Before the commencement of the LRA 2002 certain equitable easements were regarded as having an automatically binding status as overriding interests under section 70(1)(a) LRA 1925 and rule 258 of the Land Registration Rules, that is to say, if openly exercised and enjoyed as appurtenant to the dominant tenement. This was supported by the Court of Appeal in Celsteel v Alton House Holdings Ltd [1985] 1 WLR 204 as well as other cases. The scope of the main overriding interests, which illustrates from the decided cases. This controversial extension of the the field of overriding interests has now been reversed by the 2002 Act. Equitable easements and profits created on or after 13 October 2003 can no longer rank as interests which 'override' registered dispositions of the servient estate and their protection depends upon an entry on the register. However, an easement or profit which comprised an overriding interest before 13 October 2003 will continue to override pursuant to section 134(2), Sch 12, para 9(1)-(2) LRA 2002. Overriding interest protection for newly created easements and profits is strictly confined by the LRA 2002 to legal rights alone: para 3(1) Sch 3 LRA 2002 irrespective of it's mode of creation (Chapters 9 para 100 and 12 para 238 Kevin and Susan Gray: Elements of Land Law, Fourth Edition). No equitable easement or profit brought into existence following this date can ever override a registered disposition. Instead, the objective of the 2002 Act is to ensure that the express disposition of any new easement or profit out of the registered land must, if the disposition is to 'operate at law', be completed by registration: s27(1) LRA 2002. 7/ Under the Land Registration Act 2002 the definition of overriding interests has changed substantially; and no longer includes a person receiving rents schedules 1 and 3) (Property Law - UK, 2006). If duly completed by registration, the relevant disposition creates rights which appear quite visibly on the register and cannot therefore be overriding (Chapters 9 para 100 and 12 para 238 Kevin and Susan Gray: Elements of Land Law, Fourth Edition). If not so completed, the disposition creates merely equitable rights for the disponee which, under the altered regime of the LRA 2002, are explicitly excluded from the category of easements and profits which can 'override' later disposition of the servient land (para 8.67 of Law Commission Report No 271, 2001). Overriding interests have been retained, whilst the scope of others has been narrowed and some have been abolished altogether. In section 37 which refers to the unregistered interests, this section gives the registrar power to enter a notice in respect of an interest that is an interest of the kind mentioned in Schedule 1, provided that it is not excluded by section 33 above. This is part of the strategy of the Act to eliminate, where practicable, overriding interests and ensure that they are entered in the register (Land Registration Act 2002 Chapter 9, 2002). The mirror principle is proposing that the register of title reflects accurately and completely beyond all argument the facts that are material to the title (HM Land Registry, 2006). Under the system of the registered conveyancing, Under this system freehold titles are registered with three degrees of quality, and leasehold with four. A purchaser may also be bound by two kinds of interest on the land: an overriding interest, which does not appear in the register (e.g. leases for 21 years or less and rights of access across the land). An example of overriding interest, at present, a lease granted for 21 years or less, which has not yet taken effect cannot be registered or protected by the entry of a notice in the register against the landlord's title but takes effect as an overriding interest. (Land Registration Act of 2002 Chapter 9, 2002). In Schedule 3, paragraph 1, 2 and 3 refers to the UNREGISTERED INTERESTS WHICH OVERRIDE REGISTERED DISPOSITIONS. Paragraph 1 says that a leasehold estate in land granted for a term not exceeding seven years from the date of the grant, except for a lease the grant of which falls within section 4(1)(d), (e) or (f) and a lease the grant of which constitutes a registrable disposition. According to Paragraph 2, an interest belonging at the time of the disposition to a person in actual occupation, so far as relating to land of which he is in actual occupation, except for an interest under a settlement under the Settled Land Act 1925 (c. 18), an interest of a person of whom inquiry was made before the disposition and who failed to disclose the right when he could reasonably have been expected to do so, an interest which belongs to a person whose occupation would not have been obvious on a reasonably careful inspection of the land at the time of the disposition, and of which the person to whom the disposition is made does not have actual knowledge at that time, and a leasehold estate in land granted to take effect in possession after the end of the period of three months beginning with the date of the grant and which has not taken effect in possession at the time of the disposition. Paragraph 3 is on the easements and profits a prendre. The paragraph says that " a legal easement or profit a prendre, except for an easement, or a profit a prendre which is not registered under the Commons Registration Act 1965 (c. 64), which at the time of the disposition is not within the actual knowledge of the person to whom the disposition is made, and would not have been obvious on a reasonably careful inspection of the land over which the easement or profit is exercisable (Land Registration Act 2002 Chapter 9, 2002). The creation of the easement is a registrable disposition of the servient land (s.27 LRA 2002) which means that the application to register the easements against the servient land must also be accompanied by a form DI (Disclosable overriding interests) revealing the existence of certain overriding interests that affect the estate (s.71 LRA 2002). This means therefore that if the lease that created the easement is out of the same title as that affected by the easement, and the lease is only capable of being noted, it must be revealed on a form DI. The net effect of this provision is that Land Registry will usually note the lease at the same time that the easement is registered (Land Registry eLearming: Leases, 2006). References Explanatory Notes to Land Registration Act 2002 Chapter 9. 2002. Crown. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/en2002/2002en09.htm Gray, K. J. and Gray, S. F. 2006. Elements of Land Law. 4th edition, Chapter 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. 66. Griffiths, Gerwyn, Reader in Law, University of Glamorgan. http://www.cus.cam.ac.uk/mjd1001/estoppel.pdf Harpum, C. 'Purchasers with notice of unregistered land charges' [1981] CLJ 213. HM Land Registry. Wikipedia. Wikimedia, Inc. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HM_Land_Registry Land Law Legal Essays and Coursework . 2005. AcumenLegal: Legal Intelligence. The University and LPC Essay and Coursework Database. Acumen Professional Intelligence, Ltd. http://www.acumenlegal.com/Land_Law/. Land Registration Act 2002. Chapter 9. Office of Public Sector Information Cabinet Office, March 5, 2002. Crown. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/. Land Registry eLearming: Leases: legal easements in leases. http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/assets/library/documents/easements.pdf. Lloyds Bank v Carrick. 1996. All ER 630 and Yaxley v Gotts [2000] Ch 162. Maudsley and Burn, Chapter 1, part II. Protection of Disponees. 2001. Land Registration Bill [Lords]. House of Commons Standing Committee D (pt 8). The United Kingdom Parliament. Parliamentary. http:/www. parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200102/.../am/11211s08.htm. The 1925 Reforms and Unregistered Land Law. 2006. University of London External Programme. Chapter 2. londonexternal.ac.uk/.../laws/subject_guides/land_law/land_2.pdf Thompson, M. P. 'The purchaser as private detective' [1986] Conv 283. Webber, Gary and Thompson-Copsey, Sarah. Property Law Website, 2006. Land registration: Boundaries and Right of Way. http://www.propertylawuk.net/propertytransactionsregistration.html. Appendix Appendix 1 : Full article on "CMS Cameron McKenna LLP - United Kingdom - Acquiring title by adverse possession in breach of human rights" CMS Cameron McKenna LLP - United Kingdom - Acquiring title by adverse possession in breach of human rights (22/11/...... United Kingdom: Acquiring title by adverse possession in breach of ... considering developing the land and decided not to renew ... information service. To register for Law-Now, please go ...www.mondaq.com/i_article.asp_Q_articleid_E_36268 - 39k The dispute between Mr and Mrs Graham and JA Pye (Oxford) Limited has been an ongoing saga. The story began in 1977 when the Grahams were granted a grazing licence by Pye. Between 1977 and 1983 a series of similar licences was granted. In 1984 Pye was considering developing the land and decided not to renew the licence. The Grahams, however, continued to use the land. After 12 years the Grahams claimed title to the land because of their continued adverse possession of the land. The Limitation Act 1980 provided that no action could be brought by any owner of land to recover that land if it is possessed by another for twelve years or more. At the first hearing, the Grahams were successful. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision maintaining that the continuation of the Grahams' use of the land was just that - a continuation of a licence and not actual possession. The Court of Appeal was asked to consider whether the Human Rights Act 1988 had any impact on the matter. The Act had come into force on 1 October 2000; after the Grahams' adverse possession had crystallised. Pye claimed that Article 1 of the European Convention had been breached. This provides that no one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. The Court held that the effect of limitation was not a "deprivation of possessions" but the practical consequence of his right of action being time-barred. The matter reached the House of Lords where it was held that the only question to be considered was whether the person claiming adverse possession had taken possession without the consent of the owner. They were satisfied that the Grahams had taken possession and did not consider the human rights angle as it was conceded that that the Human Rights Act had no retrospective effect. Pye took the case to the European Court of Human Rights. It complained that it had been deprived of its land by the operation of the UK rules on adverse possession in a manner incompatible with Article 1. The Court ruled by a majority of four to three that the adverse possession rules in the Land Registration Act 1925 and the Limitation Act 1980 did breach a true owner's rights to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions in that he was deprived of his possessions in a manner which was not in the public interest and was not proportionate. The provisions of the Limitation Act imposed upon Pye an excessive burden and upset the fine balance between the demands of the public interest on the one hand and the company's right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possession on the other. The taking of property without payment of compensation related to its value was only justified in exceptional circumstances. Such circumstances were not present in this case. What implications does this decision have for the future of the law relating to adverse possession After the implementation of the Land Registration Act 2002, the law was changed in relation to adverse possession affecting registered land. Under the 2002 Act the Limitation Act does not apply to registered land. Instead, an owner may apply for registration after 10 years' adverse possession but the Land Registry is required to notify the owner and any chargee of the application both of whom may oppose the application. Would this procedure be compatible with the Human Rights legislation It is not certain whether the new procedure complies with the European Convention on Human Rights although the European Court paid particular weight to the changes in the 2002 Act, and saw it as a recognition by parliament of deficiencies in the old law, when deciding that the old procedure did not provide a fair balance between public interest and an individual's right to peaceful possession. Any outstanding claim relating to registered land where the 12 years expired before the 13th October 2003 will be doomed to failure due to this case. Any claim that has been upheld may be subject to a claim for compensation against the government. As the Pye decision involved specific reference to the Land Registration Act 1925 and the Limitation Act 1980 it may not immediately affect unregistered land; however, there is no reason why, if applied more broadly, its rationale should not equally apply to a claim made in respect of unregistered land. It is also possible that attention may now be turned to claims for prescriptive easements. We should expect to see test cases looking at the effect of the Human Rights Act in any area where one party is deprived in some way of exercising his full rights of ownership due to the act of another. A fair balance between the interests of a landowner and public interest must be maintained. This article was written for Law-Now, CMS Cameron McKenna's free online information service. To register for Law-Now, please go to www.law-now.com/law-now/mondaq Law-Now information is for general purposes and guidance only. The information and opinions expressed in all Law-Now articles are not necessarily comprehensive and do not purport to give professional or legal advice. All Law-Now information relates to circumstances prevailing at the date of its original publication and may not have been updated to reflect subsequent developments. The original publication date for this article was 22/11/2005. Read More