Balevents Ltd v Sartori [2014] EWHC 1164 (Ch); [2014] PLSCS 221 concerned the ownership of land in front of leasehold premises in Birmingham, which was registered to the council. However, it was subsequently registered in the name of an individual who claimed to have acquired title to it as a result of adverse possession.
The occupiers of the leasehold premises at the rear had encouraged the applicant to apply to be registered with title to the land. They were on good terms with him, because he was associated with the club that operated from the premises, and they were concerned that they might be held to ransom if the land were to be sold to a third party. When the parties fell out, the owners of the club claimed that the registered proprietor held the land on constructive trust for them.
The judge rejected the club’s claim. He doubted whether the applicant was a fiduciary in connection with the application to be registered with possessory title to the land. In addition, the evidence showed that the owners of the club had encouraged the individual to apply for registration on his own account. Consequently, the club had consented to the registration in his name.
However, the club had also applied for rectification of the register. A person applying to rectify the register need not establish an interest in the land himself: Mann v Dingley [2011] PLSCS 106. Consequently, the fact that the club was unable to claim the land itself did not prevent it from applying for the title to be restored to the council.
The judge accepted that the registration in the name of the individual had been a mistake because he had stated – incorrectly – that he and his predecessors had been in unbroken possession of the land from 1974 until 13 October 2003, when the Land Registration Act 2002 came into force. Consequently, the Land Registry had applied transitional provisions in the 2002 Act, which did not require them to apply new rules, when dealing with applications for registration, which make it more difficult for squatters to deprive registered proprietors of title to land.
As a result, the individual was now registered with title – and the 2002 Act precludes rectification of the register without the consent of a registered proprietor who is in physical possession of the land. However, there are statutory exceptions to this rule, which apply where the proprietor caused or substantially contributed to the mistake by fraud or lack of proper care, or it would be unjust, for any other reason, not to make the alteration.
The registered proprietor was in physical possession of part of the land. However, the court decided that he had been careless and/or reckless about the accuracy of the information provided to the Land Registry. Consequently, there were no statutory obstacles to his removal from the register.
This left an area that was not in the physical possession of the registered proprietor. The legislation required him to show exceptional circumstances that would justify a refusal to rectify the register – which he was unable to do. Any arguments in his favour were outweighed by his fraud and/or lack of proper care and it would be unjust to allow him to continue as the registered proprietor of the land.
Allyson Colby is a property law consultant
