Wells v Pilling Parish Council

An application to alter the register of title concerns private law rights where its effect would remove or affect an estate vested in the registered proprietor. The fact that those rights are recorded in a register open to the public does not convert the application into public law proceedings. Accordingly, an applicant in such proceedings must have standing under the common law, and an adjudicator may strike out an application made by a person without standing under Rule 24 of the relevant procedural rules.

Mr Wells was registered with possessory title to land under the Land Registration Act 2002. Pilling Parish Council applied to alter the register, alleging that the factual requirements for registration had not been satisfied. The adjudicator refused to cancel the application, holding that no restriction on the class of applicant should be implied from the Act.

On appeal, the central issue was whether the Council’s application was a matter of private law or public law. The parties agreed that, if it was private law proceedings, the Council lacked common-law standing and the application could be struck out.

1. Appeal allowed. The Council’s application to alter the register was cancelled and the Council was removed as a party to the objection.
2. The original registration conferred private law rights on Mr Wells. The proposed closure or alteration of the title would remove a freehold estate vested in him under the Land Registration Act 2002. That was a question of private rights, notwithstanding that the rights were recorded in a public register.
3. The distinction between private and public law was therefore decisive. Since the application concerned private rights, the common law required the applicant to have standing. The parties accepted that the Council had no standing at common law and that its statutory powers under section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972 did not confer the necessary standing.
4. Under Rule 24 of the The Adjudicator to Her Majesty’s Land Registry Practice and Procedure Rules 2003, the adjudicator had power to remove an applicant lacking standing. That power ought to be exercised in this case.
5. Wilson & Ors v Keeper of the Registers of Scotland [1999] SCLR 872 was persuasive authority. The Scottish statutory scheme was sufficiently similar to support the conclusion that an application to rectify a land register required a private interest and was not a vindication of a public right.

1. Adjudicator to Her Majesty’s Land Registry: On 14 March 2007, the adjudicator refused to cancel the Council’s application to alter the register.
2. High Court (Chancery Division): Permission to appeal was subsequently granted by Evans-Lombe J. The appeal was allowed, the application was cancelled, and the Council was removed as a party to the objection.