Silkstone & Anor v Tatnall

An objector may cease participating in adjudication proceedings, but that does not withdraw the underlying objection or deprive the adjudicator of jurisdiction. Before referral, an objection may be disposed of by agreement, including unilateral withdrawal. After referral, the matter is in the adjudicator’s hands. A purported unilateral withdrawal is ineffective unless the parties agree the terms on which the proceedings are to be determined. The adjudicator must then determine the referred matter, or give effect to a complete agreement by appropriate directions to the Registrar.

The appellants objected to the cancellation of a unilateral notice concerning an alleged right of way. The objection was referred to the Adjudicator under section 73(7) of the Land Registration Act 2002. Shortly before the hearing, the appellants sought to withdraw their objection and preserve the possibility of later court proceedings.

The Deputy Adjudicator refused to permit withdrawal, determined the merits, directed cancellation of the unilateral notice and ordered that maintenance and repair rights be noted on the register. The appeal concerned whether the appellants could withdraw, whether the Adjudicator retained jurisdiction, and whether the Deputy Adjudicator had been entitled to refer to section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Adjudicator’s jurisdiction continued notwithstanding the appellants’ purported withdrawal.
2. There is a material distinction between ceasing participation in adjudication proceedings and withdrawing the underlying objection. A party may cease participating without permission. The Adjudicator may then proceed and reach conclusions justified by the evidence.
3. Before referral, section 73(7) of the Land Registration Act 2002 permits an objection to be disposed of by agreement, and this includes unilateral withdrawal. After referral, however, the objection is no longer in the Registrar’s hands. The reference exists to determine the underlying right in dispute, rather than merely to administer the register.
4. A purported withdrawal given to the Registrar or the Adjudicator while the matter is pending before the Adjudicator is ineffective. The Act and Rules contain no procedure enabling the Adjudicator to accept or reject a unilateral withdrawal of the original objection. If the parties agree the terms on which the proceedings are to be determined, the Adjudicator may give effect to that agreement by directions to the Registrar. Without complete agreement, the Adjudicator must determine the proceedings.
5. The appellants had not conceded the cancellation sought by the first respondent or otherwise settled the matter. The Adjudicator was therefore entitled to determine the application substantively. The Deputy Adjudicator’s reference to section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925 was unobjectionable because the evidence did not establish the alleged right of way, whether by that route or by prescription.

• High Court (Chancery Division): The appeal from the Deputy Adjudicator’s decision was dismissed. The Adjudicator’s substantive determination and directions concerning cancellation of the unilateral notice and maintenance and repair rights were upheld.