Derbyshire County Council v Fallon & Anor

Where a registered general boundary is shown in the wrong place, the register may be altered even though the alteration does not change the paper title. The relevant discretion is not confined to title. It may take account of the practical ability to recover and enjoy the land, including unresolved questions of estoppel, possession and injunctive relief. Exceptional circumstances may justify refusing alteration where moving the boundary would accord with the paper title but conflict with the practical position on the ground and achieve no useful purpose. An appellate court should interfere with discretionary decisions only where they fall outside the generous ambit of reasonable disagreement.

The Council appealed under the Land Registration Act 2002 from a decision of the Deputy Adjudicator to HM Land Registry. The Fallons were registered proprietors of land adjoining unregistered Council land. The Council contended that the filed plan placed the boundary incorrectly and sought alteration of the register.

The Adjudicator found that the Council had paper title to the disputed strip, that the general boundaries rule did not make the filed plan conclusive, and that the Fallons had not acquired title by adverse possession. He nevertheless refused to direct alteration because the development on the strip raised unresolved questions about recovery, estoppel and injunctive relief, and ordered the Council to pay half the Fallons’ costs.

1. The Council established that the pre-registration boundary followed the line on the 1964 survey plan and therefore had paper title to the disputed strip.
2. The proposed correction was not rectification under paragraph 1 of Schedule 4 to the Land Registration Act 2002, because it would not prejudicially affect the Fallons’ title. Paragraph 5 nevertheless gave the registrar a discretion to alter the register in a non-rectification case.
3. The Adjudicator was entitled to use the exceptional-circumstances approach in rule 126 of the Land Registration Rules 2003 as guidance. The discretion could take account of whether the Council could recover the land in practice. Estoppel or discretionary refusal of an injunction might leave the Fallons in occupation, so altering the general boundary might accord with paper title but fail to reflect practical reality, create confusion and achieve no useful purpose.
4. The Adjudicator’s decision fell within the generous ambit of reasonable disagreement. The substantive appeal was dismissed.
5. Under rule 42 of the Adjudicator to Her Majesty’s Land Registry (Practice and Procedure) Rules 2003, the Adjudicator was entitled to treat the Fallons as overall winners and order the Council to pay half their costs. The costs appeal was dismissed.

High Court (Chancery Division): appeal from the Deputy Adjudicator to HM Land Registry’s decision dated 23 November 2006. The High Court dismissed the appeal against both the substantive decision and the costs order.