conveancing b introducing a new sstem of electronic conveancing.
The government wanted to reduce the ris of a purchaser acuiring an unsafe title and b introducing electronic conveancing the hoped that the new sstem of an online register would solve this problem. 4or -nstance, if ou were a purchaser and ou were acuiring land all ou would have to do is go online to verif proof of ownership to registered land which should be*accessible and regulated b the register+.
This is achieved through the *mirror principle+ where technolog is used to ensure that reflection of rights is more accurate and there is no further need of investigation of title as it is all available on the register.
The other two e features of land registration are the insurance principle and the curtain principle. 4irstl, the insurance principle refers to the guarantee secured b the 6tate that an loss incurred b a registered land resulting from reliance on upon it b the purchaser on the land %egistr will be compensated b wa of *public funds+.
6o if ou are a purchaser and relied on the information provided on the land %egistr and it was inaccurate and ou suffered loss because of that fact then ou are entitle to compensation. 4inall, the curtain principle is this concept that land registration ma allow certain euitable interests that are attached to the land and are not disclosed on the register, but are hidden from a purchaser7s view.
However, the curtain and insurance principle are almost e2actl the same implications of overreaching and indemnit which are generall unchanged b the
6o far we have established that the curtain and insurance principle are unaltered b the legislation. However, this is not the case for the *mirror principle+ which contains provisions that restricts the mirror principle. -n other words, this provision+s relates to the proprietar
1#Law 3om. No. #21, s'ra note at 'arara'h 1.11/
A''ey (ational Building Society v Cann
71%%18 1 3 50 at 23 'er Lord Ol!er ylmerton1)
)illia*s + ,lyn-s Ban. Ltd v Boland
71%18 3 )2 'er Lord ?lerfor4e (herenafter *@oland+&15 Gray and Gray, s'ra note 1 at 1% 'arara'h #.#.#110
)olfson v Registrar ,eneral !(S)
& 71%/)8 51 3L- /$$A see also Gray and Gray at 1% 'arara'h #.#.#$/
Sayles: Land Law Concentrate 4e
Chapter 3: Outline answers to essay questions
The continued existence of overriding interests means that the objectives behind establishing a registered land system can never be met and the system itself can never be as efficient, certain, and just as was intended.
As an introduction, it may be advisable to consider the objectives behind registered land. To do so, you will need to consider very briefly the problems with the system that existed before registered land was introduced. Particular focus here may include a consideration of the difficulties and apparent injustices caused by both the conveyancing procedure (with reliance on investigation of title deeds) and the operation of the doctrine of notice (with the precarious protection it gave holders of equitable interests).
Reflect upon the way in which a registered system of land holding would remedy these problems. This may include discussion of the three principles behind registered land: mirror, insurance and curtain. How was the system to become more efficient, certain and just?
In what way does the existence of overriding interests conflict with these principles and prevent the system meeting its intended objectives? Particular focus here will be upon the fact that overriding interests are undiscoverable by looking at the register alone and thus prevent the mirror principle from fully operating.
You may wish to consider how the introduction of the LRA 2002, and the changes it made to the existence of overriding interests, intended to meet these concerns. For example, focus may rest upon the reduction in number of possible overriding interests; or the fact that discoverability of such interests upon reasonably careful inspection of the land was introduced as a requirement for their enforcement against third parties, making their ability to bind without being present on the register less controversial. Critically analyse whether the LRA was successful here.
Final consideration should be given as to why the LRA 2002 did not take the opportunity to eliminate overriding interests from the system of registered land completely. Why must such interests continue to exist? In what way can these interests be justified? Analyse from the perspective of both the holder of the interest and any intended purchaser of the land over which they exist. Perhaps consider human rights implications here.
Draw appropriate conclusions.