On the present state of the authorities, a claim to have a prior document rectified for reasons of mistake is one of the many interests that are capable of subsisting as minor interests for the purpose of section 70(1)(g) of the Land Registration Act 1925: see Nurdin & Peacock plc v DB Ramsden & Co [1999] 1 EGLR 119. Whether a purchaser is bound by that interest may depend, of course, upon whether the claimant is “in actual occupation” within the meaning of that paragraph.
Not surprisingly perhaps, it was held in Holaw (470) Ltd v Stockton Estates Ltd [2000] EGCS 89 that the use of the land in question as a car park for the benefit of the claimant’s adjoining business premises did not amount to actual occupation.
Start your free trial today
Your trusted daily source of commercial real estate news and analysis. Register now for unlimited digital access throughout April.
Including:
- Breaking news, interviews and market updates
- Expert legal commentary, market trends and case law
- In-depth reports and data-led analysis
On the present state of the authorities, a claim to have a prior document rectified for reasons of mistake is one of the many interests that are capable of subsisting as minor interests for the purpose of section 70(1)(g) of the Land Registration Act 1925: see Nurdin & Peacock plc v DB Ramsden & Co [1999] 1 EGLR 119. Whether a purchaser is bound by that interest may depend, of course, upon whether the claimant is “in actual occupation” within the meaning of that paragraph.
Not surprisingly perhaps, it was held in Holaw (470) Ltd v Stockton Estates Ltd [2000] EGCS 89 that the use of the land in question as a car park for the benefit of the claimant’s adjoining business premises did not amount to actual occupation.
