It is not as widely appreciated as it should be that Land Registry title plans record only the general position of property boundaries. However, the general boundaries rule is fundamental to our land registration system and is now enshrined in the Land Registration Act 2002. The effect of the rule is that lines drawn on a title plan are not definitive and may not show the legal boundary of a property. Consequently, in the case of a boundary dispute, it remains necessary to refer back to the deeds.
Property professionals can learn much about the application and effect of the general boundaries rule from the decision in Derbyshire County Council v Fallon [2007] EWHC 1326 (Ch); [2007] PLSCS 121. The council asked the Land Registry to correct a mistake in a registered title on the ground that it owned part of the land, which had been wrongly registered, some years previously, in the name of the registered proprietors.
It is not as widely appreciated as it should be that Land Registry title plans record only the general position of property boundaries. However, the general boundaries rule is fundamental to our land registration system and is now enshrined in the Land Registration Act 2002. The effect of the rule is that lines drawn on a title plan are not definitive and may not show the legal boundary of a property. Consequently, in the case of a boundary dispute, it remains necessary to refer back to the deeds. Property professionals can learn much about the application and effect of the general boundaries rule from the decision in Derbyshire County Council v Fallon [2007] EWHC 1326 (Ch); [2007] PLSCS 121. The council asked the Land Registry to correct a mistake in a registered title on the ground that it owned part of the land, which had been wrongly registered, some years previously, in the name of the registered proprietors. The court accepted that the council had a paper title to the land. It therefore became necessary to decide what type of mistake the Land Registry was being asked to correct. The 2002 Act distinguishes between alterations to, and rectification of, the register. Rectification involves the correction of a mistake that would prejudicially affect the title of a registered proprietor, and is permitted only in certain specified circumstances. The registered proprietors argued that the alteration would constitute rectification of the register because it would prejudicially affect them. They relied upon the statutory safeguards that apply where a registered proprietor is in possession of land. The safeguards prohibit rectification (unless the registered proprietor has caused or substantially contributed to the mistake) without the proprietor’s consent, unless it would cause injustice if the alteration were not made or exceptional circumstances justified the preservation of the status quo. The judge decided that the correction would constitute an alteration, rather than rectification. The judge referred to the general boundaries rule, and held that re-drawing the boundary on the title plan would not subtract anything from the registered title. It would merely substitute one general boundary for another and produce a different general boundary in a more accurate position. This enabled the judge to conclude that the Land Registry could correct the title plan, despite the registered proprietors’ objections, unless there were exceptional reasons not to do so. The court decided that exceptional circumstances did justify the preservation of the status quo in this particular case, because an unresolved issue as to whether a proprietory estoppel arose in the registered proprietors’ favour. However, the decision confirms that, in normal cases, the statutory safeguards that protect registered proprietors in possession will not apply to applications to amend a general boundary line drawn on a title plan where applicants can: (i) establish title; and (ii) disprove any claim to adverse possession or other bars to recovering possession of the land. Allyson Colby is a property law consultant
