Экзамен зачет учебный год 2023 / Sparkes, A New Land Law

This will is made the 1st January 1990 by me Attlee:

1.I give all my property, including my freehold house, to my wife for life and after her death to my child.

2.I appoint my wife to be my sole executor.

[Signed by Attlee in the presence of two attesting witnesses.]

Two equitable interests were created in succession and the testator omitted to opt expressly for a trust for sale. On a death occurring before 1997 this will created a strict settlement and subsequent title should be based on a Settled Land Act vesting document, though it rarely was.

The problems were even greater where a settlement was created by a single document executed by a living settlor. This paralysed the legal title, preventing any dealing with the land until the settlement had been rectified by the execution of the two proper documents, although an honest purchaser without notice of the settlement was protected against the consequences of such a defect.97 This problem could also arise from unguarded drafting of matrimonial orders – for example if a wife was given a right to occupy a former matrimonial home for life98 – and again from oral licences.99

In terms of definition, a strict settlement arose when land was “limited in trust for persons by way of succession.”100 There could be an express trust, a trust imposed on limited interests,101 or a succession created when a reversion arises after creation of a limited interest, for life,102 an entail, or a determinable, base, or conditional fee. Additional forms of settlement were introduced in 1925: where there was no interest in possession – for example where land is given to my first child to attain 30103 – where land was passed to a minor entitled absolutely in possession,104 and where land was owned absolutely subject to family charges.105

4.Concealed settlements

[14.13] Unless the trustees of a strict settlement collect the purchase money, the tenant for a life is not authorised to sell and any attempt to do so is void as to the legal estate.106 Protection is provided for an honest purchaser against minor defects: he is conclusively taken to have given the best price that could reasonably have been obtained by the tenant for life, and also “to have complied with all the other require-

97SLA 1925 s 13, as amended in 1926.

98Bacon v. Bacon [1947] P 151; RE Megarry (1947) 63 LQR 421; Morss v. Morss [1972] Fam 264, CA (no trust on facts); Martin v. Martin [1978] Fam 12 (point missed); P Smith [1978] Conv 229.

99Peasley v. Haileybury & Imperial Service College [2001] WTLR 1365, Ch D; see below [19.59].

100SLA 1925 s 1(1)(i).

101LPA 1925 s 1(3); SLA 1925 s 16.

102SLA 1925 s 1(4); this reproduces the pre-1926 law: Re Hunter & Hewlett’s C [1907] 1 Ch 46.

103SLA 1925 s 1(1)(iii). Before 1926 the land was unsaleable during any gap in the beneficial entitlement: Re Horne’s SE (1888) 39 Ch D 84.

104Ss 1(1)(ii)(d), 27(1).

105See above [14.08].

106SLA 1925 s 18; Bevan v. Johnston [1990] 2 EGLR 33, CA; J Hill (1991) 107 LQR 596; R Bartlett [1992] Conv 425.

ments of this Act”.107 This protection may not apply if the tenant for life suppresses the settlement completely and purports to sell it as if he was a beneficial owner. Such a fraud enables him to collect the whole purchase price even though he has some limited beneficial interest.

Where title is registered, a buyer will get a good title since the beneficial interests are minor interests which are overridden if not protected on the register at the time of a sale. If title is unregistered the position is less satisfactory. Danckwerts J held in Weston v. Henshaw108 that the buyer’s protection broke down in this case just where it was needed most. Settled Land Act 1925 protection is only available to a buyer who knows he is dealing with a tenant for life.109 However, a more recent case doubts this restrictive interpretation and is more lenient to the purchaser.110 Had the settlement been created by only one document, an honest purchaser without notice of the existence of a defective settlement would be safe.111 Clearly such a purchaser should always be protected against the suppression of an undiscoverable settlement.

E. MANAGEMENT DURING INCAPACITY

1.Minors

[14.14] Since 1970,112 a minor has been a person under 18 years of age, majority being attained at the beginning of the eighteenth birthday. Previously majority was attained at 21,113 and a person below that age is described as an infant throughout the 1925 legislation. A minor does not have capacity to receive or sell a legal estate in land.114 Conferring a benefit on an underage person necessarily creates a trust, the capacity of the trustees to sell overcoming the contractual deficiency of the minor.115 All trusts involving minors created after 1997 fall within the trusts of land scheme.

Children are the most common objects of settlements. Trustees administer the property and pay some of the income to the parents to use for the maintenance of the child, and accumulate surplus income to provide a nest egg on their majority;116 the trustees can also make capital advancements.117 Alternatively the trustees may allow the beneficiary to occupy the property as a home, a possibility more clearly stated under the new scheme.118 After 1996 a straightforward trust of land suffices, that is to T in trust for M for life, but before 1997 the default was a strict settlement.119

107SLA 1925 s 110(1).

108[1950] Ch 510.

109EH Scammell [1957] CLP 152; GA Grove (1961) 24 MLR 123, 129; P Stone [1984] Conv 354; R Warrington [1985] Conv 377.

110Re Morgan’s Lease [1972] Ch 1; DW Elliott (1971) 87 LQR 338; RH Maudsley (1973) 36 MLR 25;

Hurrell v. Littlejohn [1904] 1 Ch 689.

111SLA 1925 s 13, as amended in 1926.

112Family Law Reform Act 1969 ss 1, 9.

113The day before the 21st anniversary: Re Shurey [1918] 1 Ch 263.

114LPA 1925 s 1(6), 19; Cheshire & Burn (16th ed), ch 29.

115Contracts are voidable at the instance of the minor: Chaplin v. Leslie Frewin (Publishers) [1966] Ch 71; Cornell v. Harrison [1916] 1 Ch 328; Edwards v. Carter [1893] AC 360.

116TA 1925 s 31. Income can be paid to a minor who is married: LPA 1925 s 21.

117TA 1925 ss 32.

118TLATA 1996 ss 12, 13.

119SLA 1925 s 1(1)(ii)(d).

On transfer to a minor, a trust is imposed in order to secure saleability where an absolute interest is given to or sold to a minor. No legal estate can pass, and instead an attempt to convey land to a minor operates as a declaration that the land is held on trust for him. A trust of land also arises where a minor becomes entitled on intestacy or in any other circumstance.120 If land is passed jointly to two people – one an adult and the other a minor – a trust of land is imposed by which the adult will hold the land on trust for both of them jointly.121 A minor cannot act as trustee, so the legislation deletes any attempt to make him one.122

2.Mental patients

[14.15] The Mental Health Act 1983123 provides for the management of the property and affairs of a patient, that is a person whose mental disorder renders him incapable of managing and administering his property and affairs.124 Management is undertaken by the Court of Protection, headed by a designated High Court judge, which assumes full control over the patient’s property, including sale and purchase, mortgaging, and management control,125 and directing provision for those whom the patient might have been expected to benefit.126 Management is carried out by the Public Trustee acting under the supervision of the court127 or by a receiver128 appointed by the court to look after the affairs of an individual patient.129 Further reform is proposed.130

F. CHARITIES

[14.16] Charity land may be held by individuals as charitable trustees, by an incorporated body supervised by the Charity Commissioners,131 or by the Official Custodian of Charities132 a course which avoids the need to vest and revest land on every change of trustees.133 Charitable trustees now draw their managerial powers from the trusts

120TLATA 1996 sch 1 paras 1–2; similarly if land is acquired by a group of people who are all minors. Before 1997 there was a strict settlement, but if the settlement remained defective in 1996 (that is there was no vesting deed in favour of statutory owners) a trust of land arises.

121TLATA 1996 sch 1 para 1(2), replacing the LPA 1925 s 19 trust for sale.

122TLATA 1996 sch 1 paras 1(1)–(2), amending LPA 1925 s 19(5).

123Ss 93–113; Cheshire & Burn (16th ed) ch 29. Note also enduring powers of attorney, below [14.39ff].

124Imperial Loan Co v. Stone [1892] 1 QB 599; AH Hudson [1984] Conv 32; Hart v. O’Connor [1985] AC 1000, PC; AH Hudson [1986] Conv 178.

125Mental Health Act 1983 s 97.

126Ss 96–97; Re C [1991] 3 All ER 866 Hoffmann J; Re S [1997] 1 FLR 96; Re Beaney [1978] 1 WLR 770.

127SI 1994/3046 r 6.

128Receivers have all powers of trustees of land: TLATA 1996 sch 3 amending LPA 1925 s 22; Pritchard

v.Briggs [1980] Ch 338, CA (sale was subject to burdens which would bind a purchaser if there was no mental disability).

129Mental Health Act 1983 ss 95–96, 99; SI 1994/3046 r 8. A restriction should be placed on the register to prohibit registration of any disposition not authorised by the Court of Protection.

130Law Com 231 (1995); Who Decides? (HMSO, December 1997).

131Charities Act 1993 ss 50–69; DLRR 2003 r 177.

132Charities Act 1993 s 2; DLRR 2003 rr 176(4)(b), 178.

133Charitable trustees execute transactions in the name of the Official Custodian, a fact recorded on the register by a restriction: DLRR 2003 r 178.

of land scheme,134 but with a conveyancing machinery derived from charities legislation.135

Acquisition of land by charities was restricted by the mortmain legislation,136 rules concerned with accumulations of land outside the feudal net and obsolescent long before their abolition in 1960.137 Sales of land by charities are also restricted to prevent breaches of trust,138 but the regime established by the Charities Act 1993139 is quite relaxed. The new rules for land registration require that a transfer must be accompanied by a free standing application for a restriction.

(1) Acquisition of land by a charity

[14.17] Since sales of charity land are restricted, potential buyers and the land registry must be alerted to the fact that the land is held for a charity by a statement made in the transfer to the charity. New forms of certificate were provided in 1993140 which must state whether the charity is or is not exempt.

(2) Sale by exempt charity

[14.18] Charities exempted from full regulation include universities, grant maintained schools, colleges,141 the large national museums, the Church Commissioners, and prescribed additions.142 Transfers and contracts must state that the recipient is an exempt charity, a certificate which protects future purchasers.143 The land registry restriction requires only that the transaction is authorised by the trusts of the charity.144

(3) Charities which are not exempt

[14.19] Restrictions apply to almost all dealings145 with the land of non-exempt charities.146 A certificate in the document transferring title to the charity leads to the entry of an appropriate restriction on the register.147 Before selling, the trustees must carry out certain obvious steps, though care is needed to comply with the statutory detail. A

134TLATA 1996 sch 1 para 4; consent requirements are not permitted: s 10(2). See: Cheshire & Burn (16th ed), 78–79, 215–225; Megarry & Wade (6th ed), [8.109–8.122].

135GA Grove (1962) 24 MLR 123, 125 (bare trusts).

136Mortmain & Charitable Uses Acts 1888 and 1891; De Viris Religiosis 1279 (7 Edw 1 stat 2).

137Charities Act 1960 s 38.

138S 29.

139Charities Act 1993 ss 36–40; White Paper, Charities: A Framework for the Future Cm 694 (HMSO,

1989).

140Charities Act 1993 s 37(5); DLRR 2003 r 179. If unregistered, the transaction will now attract first registration: s 37(7)–(8), as amended by LRA 2002 sch 11.

141Universities & College Estates Acts 1925–1964 (Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, Eton & Winchester).

142Charities Act 1993 ss 3, 96, sch 2.

143Charities Act 1993 ss 37(1)–(2), 39 as amended (mortgage); DLRR 2003 r 180(1)(a).

144Charities Act 1993 s 37(9)–(10) as amended; DLRR 2003 r 182.

145But not (1) transactions permitted by a statute or scheme; (2) transfers permitted by the trust from one charity to another; (3) leases granted to a beneficiary to permit occupation, where authorised; (4) release or redemption of a rentcharge: Charities Act 1993 ss 36(9), 37(1)(ii), 40; DLRR 2003 r 180(5).

146Charities Act 1993 s 36(1).

147S 37(1), (8); DLRR 2003 r 176; LR Form E. This is also required if an exempt charity becomes nonexempt.

written report on the proposed transaction must be commissioned from a qualified and experienced surveyor, who must advise about advertisement.148 The trustees must consider the terms and decide that the best possible price will be obtained.149 If the trusts require land to be used for the purposes of the charity, and it is not proposed to buy replacement land, there is a public notice and consultation procedure must be followed.150 Purchasers are protected by the trustees’ certificate that the transaction is not a breach of trust and that they have followed the procedural formalities.151

(4) Transactions authorised by the Charity Commissioners

[14.20] The Commissioners may authorise transactions, override statutory prohibitions,152 and give directions.153 Purchasers are protected by the trustees’ certificate that the transaction has been sanctioned by the Commissioners.154

G. DEATH

1.Assimilation

[14.21] A previous chapter has explained how the 1925 legislation assimilated the two pre-1926 systems for succession into a single unified system that applies to all property, land and chattels, real and personal.155

2.Two effects of death

[14.22] It is vitally important to distinguish two different effects of the death of an estate owner or registered proprietor. Thus

(1)Land is held by a single proprietor, RP. In this case the effect of his death is to vest the land in his personal representatives.156

(2)Land is held by joint proprietors, RP1 and RP2. The effect of death of one of them (RP1) is to vest the land in the other (RP2) by survivorship,157 a transmission proved by the death certificate of the proprietor who has died.

This passage is concerned only with the former of these effects.

148Charities Act 1993 s 36(3)–(4).

149Ss 36(3)(c), 36(5)–(6) (leases), 38–39; DLRR 2003 r 180.

150Charities Act 1993 s 36(6)–(7); short leases for up to 2 years at a rack rental do not require notice; nor do transactions exempted by the Commissioners.

151S 37(3)–(4).

152S 26(1)–(2).

153S 26(3)–(4).

154S 37(2)–(4).

155See above [2.12].

156If RP was himself a personal representative see below [14.24].

157See above [12.18].

3.Devolution on death

[14.23] The entire estate of a deceased person passes at the moment of death to the personal representatives,158 and this includes both legal title to his land and all other forms of personal property.

A person dies testate if there is a valid will which names effective executors, in which case legal title will pass to them on death. The executors will prove the will and secure a grant of probate which acts as their proof of legal title.

Probate

Figure 14-3 Transmission to executives

Most people die intestate. There is no will to appoint executors, but still an intestate’s property must have a home. Today, it vests temporarily in the Public Trustee, but that is a recent change;159 at the time of the 1925 legislation it would have passed to the Probate judge.160 Thereafter the relatives of the deceased can apply for appointment as administrators; legal title is vested in them by a grant of administration to the deceased’s estate.

Figure 14-4 Transmission to administrators on intestacy

The personal representatives must then administer the deceased’s estate. Usually this involves sale of the land and distributing the money raised by sale. Alternatively the land may be passed to the person entitled to it under the deceased’s will or on his intestacy by a document called an assent. Devolution of title to registered land on death may be proved either on or off the register; the personal representative may elect to be sell off the register (which is usual) or they may decide to become registered proprietors themselves before selling.161

4.Title to registered land after death

[14.24] Title is based on the register, including any restriction on the register, but on no other fact. Thus if the personal representative sells or assents, the registrar is not

158Cheshire & Burn (16th ed), 879–882; R Kerridge “Succession and Trusts” ch 7 in Birks’ Private Law; Megarry & Wade (6th ed), [11.122–11.133].

159LP (MP) A 1994 s 14, amending AEA 1925 s 9.

160The President first of the Probate Divorce and Admiralty Division, and later the Family Division. Originally the Bishop had acted as “ordinary”.

161It should be noted on the register that they are personal representatives and a restriction in Form C is compulsory: DLRR 2003 rr 92–93.

investigate his authority to do so, but merely that his act falls within any restriction on the register.162

If, as is usual, personal representatives remain off the register, it will be necessary to produce the original grant, of probate or letters of administration, in order to establish title to sell.163 If they decide to secure registration, this will require production of the original grant or a certificate by their conveyancer that he holds the original.164 The register will reveal that the proprietor is an executor or administrator.165

5.Beneficial entitlement on death

[14.25] A fundamental of modern ownership is that the owner can make a will directing who is to succeed to his property. The ability to devise land was recognised by medieval law, and after a brief hiatus was re-established by statute in the reign of Henry VIII;166 the power to make a will is now enshrined in the Wills Act 1837.167 Freedom of testation permits the testator to choose who is to benefit after his death. Modern law circumscribes this freedom to ensure that dependants are properly provided for, whether by will or on intestacy. A successful application by a person dependent on a deceased for family provision168 overrides the will or the operation of the intestacy rules. These matters raise no classification issues since most succession law applies impartially to all forms of property. Historically the greatest problems were presented by intestate succession. Intestacy arises where a person dies without a will or, at least, without an effective will.

6.Deathbed gifts

[14.26] It is possible to make a deathbed gift of land by handing over the title deeds at a time when one is in contemplation of death.169

7.Intestate succession after 1925

[14.27] On deaths after 1925 the new assimilated law of intestate succession applies. An intestate’s entire estate, including all freehold and leasehold land, is divided between the next of kin.170 Land never passes to the heir of the deceased,171 male

162DLRR 2003 r 163.

163DLRR 2003 r 163(2).

164R 164. R 164(3) requires the same information on registration of an additional pr, and afterwards notice will be given to the existing prs.

165R 164(2).

166Wills Act 1540.

167S 9, as amended by the Administration of Justice Act 1982 s 17; A Borkowski [2000] Conv 31; Cheshire & Burn (16th ed) ch 25; R Kerridge ch 7 “Succession and Trusts” in Birks’ Private Law; Megarry

&Wade (6th ed), [11.001–11.082].

168Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975; Re B [2000] Ch 662 (care of mother).

169Sen v. Headley [1991] Ch 425, CA; P Sparkes [1992] NILQ 35; N Hopkins Informal Acquisition, 21–26; Megarry & Wade (6th ed), [11.083–11.086].

170Cheshire & Burn (16th ed) ch 26; R Kerridge ch 7 “Succession and Trusts” in Birks’ Private Law; Megarry & Wade (6th ed), [11.087–11.121].

171Entails are the solitary exception, below [18.04].

primogeniture is abolished, and the law secures equal division between children. Very often this means that the land has to be sold, so that what is actually divided is the proceeds of sale. Next of kin are entitled on intestacy. They must share at least grand parents in common, but the people entitled in a particular case are those closest to the deceased, according to a statutory list which identifies the various permutations of relatives who survive.172 The problem caused by cases where there is no living relative sufficiently closely related to the deceased to qualify as a personal representative are considered elsewhere.173

H. SCHOOL SITES

1.Rights of reverter

[14.28] Land was often given for a public purposes so that it is held only so long as it is needed, but on the terms that cessation of the use will cause ownership of the land to revert to the donor or to his modern day successor. A particular example was the School Sites Acts 1841–1852. Today a local education authority or a school trust would buy a site for a school in the commercial market in the same way as any other business,174 but before the public role in education was established, sites for schools were provided by local benefactors. A school board175 held the site for a determinable fee simple, retaining the legal estate so long as the school remained open,176 but losing legal ownership automatically if it was closed.177 No litigation was reported in the secure world before the First War,178 but serious difficulties emerged afterwards as more schools were amalgamated or closed. Local education authorities commonly wanted to close village schools and move the children to a larger school built to serve a group of villages. Such schemes depended for their viability on the ability of the authority to sell the existing school site but under the School Sites Acts the sites actually belonged to the former owner after closure of the village school. Reverter might or might not occur if the original school was replaced by another educational use.179

2.Reverter to whom?

[14.29] It is now settled by Fraser v. Canterbury Diocesan Board of Finance180 that the destination of reverter is back to the fee simple. The land reverts to the person of the

172AEA 1925 s 46, as amended most recently by the Law Reform (Succession) Act 1995.

173See above [3.44].

174BR Howell [1991] Conv 327.

175Local education authorities often took over the running of village schools.

176LPA 1925 s 7(1).

177A reverter has to be confined to a perpetuity period; if this was not done the reverter was void and the charitable gift to the school board was absolute: Re Cooper’s Conveyance [1956] 1 WLR 1096, 1103; Bath & Wells DBF v. Jenkinson [2002] EWHC 218, [2002] 3 WLR 202, Etherton J.

178G Baughen Graham (1951) 15 Conv (NS) 151, 266.

179Fraser v. Canterbury Diocesan Board of Finance [2001] Ch 669, [27–35], Mummery LJ. See also: Att-Gen

v.Shadwell [1910] 1 Ch 92, Warrington J; Re Clayton’s Deed Poll [1980] Ch 99, Whitford J; Habermehl v. AttGen [1996] EGCS 148, Rimer J; Brewers of City of London (Master of) v. Att-Gen [2000] ELR 117, Ch D.

180[2001] Ch 669, [40–48], Mummery LJ; Marchant v. Onslow [1995] Ch 1, which applied a different rule to sites forming part of a larger estate, was wrongly decided.

landowner who gave the site in the 19th century, and so (after his death) it is necessary to trace the devolution of his estate under his will or on his intestacy, possibly through several generations.181 Where a successor sold the estate to which the right of reverter attaches the purchaser acquires the rights.182

3.Reverter behind a trust

[14.30] The Reverter of Sites Act 1987183 ensures that legal title184 is no longer affected by a reverter, which operates instead as an equitable reverter hidden behind a trust of land.185 Closure of a school has no effect on the legal title held by the school trustees, or their management powers, but it shifts beneficial (equitable) entitlement to the person entitled by reverter.186 Beneficial entitlement to the site includes the right to the proceeds from sale of the site, and the trustees are obliged to locate the person entitled. The Secretary of State for Education must ensure adequate protection for potential beneficiaries when considering closures.187 This change works very much in favour of the families of original donors, since limitation can no longer act to bar equitable rights. Gifts affected by the 1987 Act include the sites of schools for the poor, schools for the middle classes, libraries, museums, churches, and chapels.188

4.Reverter at law

[14.31] Reverter of school sites occurred at law until 1987. In Re Rowhook Mission Hall189 a school had been closed in 1904 so that legal ownership reverted to the previous landowner, but a limitation period for bringing claims ran for 12 years from the moment of closure, and barred a claim by the family made in 1985. Legal title continued to shift under the Birkenhead reforms, for example when the Old National School, Ladypool Road, Birmingham190 was shut in 1938. Again 12 years were allowed to make a claim from the date of closure.

The old law continues for any land acquired by statutory authority for a public use subject to reverter on termination of the use which is outside the Reverter of Sites Act 1987.191 Examples are rifle ranges,192 and land acquired under old compulsory pur-

181Fraser at [49–53]; Re Cawston’s Conveyance [1940] Ch 27 CA.

182Bath & Wells DBF v. Jenkinson [2002] EWHC 218, [2002] 3 WLR 202 (great nephew of donor sold as tenant for life to a company, now dissolved; so title to the reverter vested in the Crown as bona vacantia).

183D Evans [1987] Conv 408; Jeffreys & Powell [1981] Conv 161; CJ Allen & S Christie [1981] Conv 186; C Sydenham [1981] Conv 454; CLR Ingram [1982] Conv 391.

184LPA 1925 s 3(3) was partially repealed by Reverter of Sites Act 1987 s 8, sch.

185As from TLATA 1996 sch 2; LR Practice Advice Leaflet 3 (1995).

186S 1(2); Charities Act 1993 s 23.

187School Standards and Framework Act 1998 sch 3 para 2(9), sch 6 para 16(8).

188School Sites Act 1841–1852; Literary and Scientific Institutions Act 1854; Places of Worship Sites Act 1873; Law Com 111 (1981), [4–10].

189[1985] Ch 62, Nourse J; Dennis v. Malcolm [1934] Ch 244, Clauson J; Re Chavasse’s Conveyance [1954] April 14th, Harman J; Re Ingleton’s Charity [1956] Ch 585, Danckwerts J; Fraser v. Canterbury Diocesan Board of Finance [2001] Ch 669, [27–35], Mummery LJ (church character lost 1874, sale 1998).

190[1985] Ch 62, 76B–84G; D Evans (1984) 100 LQR 527; [1987] Conv 408, 409–410.

191SLA 1925 s 1(1)(ii)(c), as amended by TLATA 1996 sch 3.

192Volunteer Act 1863; Law Com 111 (1981), [54–55].

chase legislation.193 A major example is a highway which vests in the local authority on a determinable fee simple so long as the public use continues, but so that the land reverts to the neighbouring land owner if the road is shut.194 The authority’s fee simple is legal.195

I.RESTRICTIONS

1.Restriction theory

[14.32] Entry of a restriction on the proprietorship register places in the public domain any limitation on the power of the proprietor to deal with the registered legal title. Proprietors enjoy full powers of disposition except to the extent that a restriction signals some departure from this assumed pattern. Restrictions must limit dealings with registered estates or mortgages, as opposed to beneficial interests.196 Apart from their use to impose a curtain on trusts of land and settlements,197 restrictions may be used:198

to prevent invalidity of transactions; to secure overreaching; or

to protect a right or claim incapable of protection by notice.

The limitation imposed may be indefinite, for a stated period or until a certain event,199 and might require various procedures before a registration proceeds,200 including:

prior notice to a named person; obtaining the consent of a named person; obtaining an order by the registrar; or some other matter or thing.

Unreasonable restrictions which are calculated to cause inconvenience will be refused.201 Later transactions will only be registered if they conform to the restriction,202 though any doubt can be avoided by a certificate obtained in advance from the registrar that he will register a proposed transaction.

193Land Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 (reverter after non-use for 10 years). Reverter rights in old railway tracks were withdrawn by the British Railways Act 1968 s 18; British Railways Board v. Pickin [1974] AC 765, HL.

194Highways Act 1980 s 263; Rolls v. St George the Martyr, Southwark Vestry (1880) 14 Ch D 785, CA.

195Tithe Redemption Commissioners v. Runcorn UDC [1954] Ch 383, CA

196LRA 2002 s 40(4). A restriction also circumscribes the creation of overriding interests off the register, such as leases shorter than 7 years.

197See above [13.34ff].

198LRA 2002 s 42.

199S 40(2).

200S 40.

201S 43(3).

202S 58(2).