Where it is claimed that land in one title belongs in another, proof of two separate mistakes – the omission of the land from one title and its inclusion in the other – is required to rectify the register.
The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has considered this in Mr Kayalaipilai Suhitharan v Mr Henryk Jan Iwaskiewicz [2025] UKUT 144 (LC).
Schedule 6 to the Land Registration Act 2002 provides that the land register can be rectified to correct a mistake which prejudicially affects the title of a registered proprietor but the consent of the registered proprietor in possession is required unless the mistake is caused by their fraud or lack of care or for any other reason it would be unjust for the alteration not to be made.
The respondent acquired number 4 Beancroft Road, Bedford in 2000 and believed a driveway and garage – which formed part of the title to 2 Beancroft Road – was part of it as they were referred to in the estate agents’ details. He parked on the drive and used the garage for storage until 2019 when the appellant acquired number 2 and objected. The appellant installed a retractable bollard to prevent the respondent from using the drive.
The respondent applied to rectify the registered title to number 4 by removing the garage and driveway from number 2 and including it in the title to number 4. The appellant objected.
Before the First-tier Tribunal, the respondent relied upon pre-registration deeds from the 1940s which showed the disputed land as part of the title to number 4 with a frontage of 66 feet: the frontage with the disputed land measured 65 feet. He argued that there must have been a mistake on first registration.
He also produced pre-registration documents from 1929 in relation to number 2 which showed the property having a shape consistent with the disputed land not being included. He offered no information as when first registration took place for either property and failed to produce the deed transferring the property to him or his solicitors’ conveyancing file.
The FTT was persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the disputed land was included in number 2’s title by mistake.
Image © Stefan Kiefer/imageBROKER/Shutterstock
Setting aside the FTT decision the tribunal decided that the respondent had to prove that there were two separate mistakes: the omission of the disputed land from the title to number 4; and its inclusion in the title of number 2. Neither mistake made the other “unsurprising” as the FTT found, so that they could be regarded as the same mistake.
Louise Clark is a property law consultant
