Frazer & Anor v Martin & Anor

Under Rules 251 and 278 of the Land Registration Rules 1925, land may form part of a registered title despite its omission from the red edging on the filed plan. The relevant question is whether it is an appurtenance, including land within the curtilage, or land occupied, enjoyed or known as part of the property. The general boundaries rule concerns the filed plan and does not directly govern a transfer plan. Where a registered transfer remains executory until registration, the parties may agree an alteration before registration. Where land is unregistered, however, a conveyance by deed takes effect immediately and cannot be undone without a re-conveyance by deed. A false reference to the registered title may therefore be rejected under the falsa demonstratio principle where the remaining description identifies the land conveyed.

The dispute concerned a strip of land forming the road frontage and vehicular access to Bridge House. Mr and Mrs Frazer claimed registration of the strip, which lay between Bridge House and the highway. The land had been acquired by Crown Hall Estates, but a Land Registry error omitted it from the filed plan on first registration.

Crown Hall Estates later transferred Bridge House to Mr Ash. The original transfer plan included the disputed land, but the plan was altered during the registration process to exclude it. The deputy adjudicator held that the transfer nevertheless included the land and dismissed the application by Mr and Mrs Frazer. They appealed with permission. The central issue was what the 1995 transfer conveyed and whether the disputed land formed part of the registered title.

1. Appeal dismissed. The deputy adjudicator reached the correct conclusion, although the reasoning differed in part.
2. Rules 251 and 278 of the Land Registration Rules 1925 operated to include the disputed land in Crown Hall Estates’ registered title. Rule 251 vested appurtenances and land occupied, enjoyed or known as part of the registered property. The general boundaries rule meant that omission from the filed plan’s red edging did not determine the precise boundary.
3. Land within the curtilage of a property is an appurtenance. Applying the approach in Trim v Sturminster Rural District Council and Methuen-Campbell v Walters, the relevant question was whether the land was so intimately associated with the property that it formed part and parcel of it. The deputy adjudicator’s findings that the disputed land lay within Bridge House’s curtilage, formed its sole vehicular access and had been used and enjoyed with it were sufficient.
4. The general boundaries rule applied to a filed plan, not directly to a transfer or conveyance plan, as explained in Chadwick v Abbotts Group Properties Ltd. Nevertheless, the reference to the plan and to land known as Bridge House identified the disputed land. If the reference to the registered title was inaccurate, it could be rejected under the falsa demonstratio principle.
5. On the preferred analysis, the 1995 transfer concerned registered land and remained executory until registration under section 20 of the Land Registration Act 1925. The parties could therefore agree the alteration to the plan before registration. Registration nevertheless vested the disputed land in Mr Ash under Rules 251 and 278. He had no express right of way over it, and clause 7.4 excluded implied rights of way.
6. Alternatively, if the land had remained unregistered, the executed transfer conveyed the legal estate immediately. Under section 52 of the Law of Property Act 1925, re-conveyance required another deed. No such deed existed. Section 123 of the Land Registration Act 1925 did not divest Mr Ash because he had applied for registration within the relevant period.

• Land Registry adjudication: The deputy adjudicator dismissed Mr and Mrs Frazer’s application for registration of the disputed land.
• High Court (Chancery Division): The appeal was dismissed. The court upheld the result, with reasoning differing in some respects from that of the deputy adjudicator.