Parshall v Hackney

Where the same piece of registered land is entered in two titles, the registrations coexist until rectification determines the better title. Possession by a registered proprietor is lawful and referable to that registration. It therefore does not amount to dispossession or adverse possession against the other registered proprietor under the Limitation Act 1980. No limitation period for recovery begins to run merely because one proprietor occupies the land. The right to seek rectification is distinct from an action for recovery. The general boundaries rule does not resolve a dispute about title to a specific registered parcel. A person cannot acquire a parking easement over land where, during the relevant use, that person owns both the dominant and servient tenements.

The appellant owned No 29 Milner Street and the respondent owned No 31. Through errors by the Land Registry, the same small triangular parcel was included in both registered titles. The respondent’s predecessors had occupied and used the parcel for parking from 1988.

A Deputy Adjudicator refused rectification, finding that the respondent had acquired possessory title by adverse possession and, alternatively, an easement. The High Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal. On this second appeal, the central issues were whether the respondent’s registered possession could be adverse under the Limitation Act 1980, whether rectification was a prerequisite to recovery, and whether a parking easement could arise.

1. Appeal allowed. Mummery LJ gave the judgment, with Patten and Treacy LJJ agreeing.
2. Under the Limitation Act 1980, the court had to ask whether the owners of No 29 had a right of action to recover the parcel and, if so, whether time ran in favour of the owners of No 31 in adverse possession. Both elements were required.
3. There was no dispossession in 1988. Under the Land Registration Act 1925, registration vested legal and beneficial title in each registered proprietor. Until rectification, both titles coexisted. The owners of No 31 were entitled, by virtue of their registration, to take and remain in possession. Their possession was lawful, referable to their registered title, and not adverse to the owners of No 29.
4. Rectification was logically prior to determining possessory title. The statutory right to apply for rectification was different from an action for recovery of land and was not itself subject to the limitation period. Malory Enterprises Ltd v Cheshire Homes (UK) Ltd [2002] Ch 216 did not govern this case because it concerned fraud and a separation between legal title and beneficial ownership, whereas both concurrent titles here were legal and beneficial titles.
5. The general boundaries rule in rule 278 of the Land Registration Rules did not assist. The dispute concerned title to a specific parcel, not the delineation of the boundary between two properties. The discretion to rectify was properly exercised because the respondent sought to benefit from a Land Registry mistake for which the appellant was not responsible.
6. No parking easement could be acquired while the person claiming it was the registered owner of both the dominant tenement and the servient tenement. The respondent therefore had neither possessory title nor an easement.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — In [2013] EWCA Civ 240, the appeal was allowed. The court rejected the adverse-possession and easement bases for retaining the disputed parcel.
2. High Court, Chancery Division — The Deputy High Court Judge dismissed the appeal from the Deputy Adjudicator and held that possessory title had been acquired.
3. Deputy Adjudicator to the Land Registry — Rectification was refused on the basis that possessory title had been acquired, alternatively that a parking easement existed.