## Facts

- Baker and Craggs were parties to a dispute over the enforceability and priority of an unregistered easement, specifically a right of way claimed by Baker over land now owned by Craggs.
- Baker purchased a parcel of land adjacent to Craggs’ property, asserting that there existed a right of way over Craggs’ land, historically used by the previous owner for access.
- The easement in question was not registered on the title.
- Craggs later acquired the servient land and contended that they were unaware of the easement and that it did not satisfy requirements for priority as an overriding interest under Schedule 3, Paragraph 3 of the Land Registration Act 2002.
- The High Court initially found for Baker, holding the easement to be an overriding interest, as it was obvious upon inspection and had been exercised within the relevant time frame.
- Craggs appealed the High Court ruling to the Court of Appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether the unregistered easement claimed by Baker qualified as an overriding interest under Schedule 3, Paragraph 3 of the Land Registration Act 2002.
2. Whether the easement was obvious on a reasonably careful inspection of the land or known to the purchaser.
3. Whether the easement had been exercised within the year preceding the disposition, satisfying the temporal requirement.
4. Whether Craggs had actual or constructive knowledge of the easement.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the High Court’s decision, holding that the easement did not qualify as an overriding interest under Schedule 3, Paragraph 3 of the Land Registration Act 2002.
- The court determined there was insufficient evidence that the easement was obvious on inspection, as lacking physical indicators such as a worn path or signage made its existence unclear.
- The court found that Craggs had no actual or constructive knowledge of the easement.
- The court decided the use of the easement in the year preceding the disposition was sporadic and insufficient to meet the statutory temporal requirement.
- As a result, the unregistered easement could not bind Craggs’ title.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Land Registration Act 2002, Schedule 3, Paragraph 3, unregistered easements can override registered dispositions if they are obvious on inspection, known to the purchaser, or exercised in the preceding year.
- The burden lies with the claimant to demonstrate the easement’s physical obviousness, the purchaser’s knowledge, or recent actual use.
- The registration system aims to create certainty and reduce hidden encumbrances for purchasers of registered land.
- The evidentiary standard for an overriding interest requires clear and consistent demonstration of use or physical indicators.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal held that Baker's unregistered easement did not amount to an overriding interest as it was neither obvious on inspection nor exercised sufficiently within the preceding year, underscoring the necessity of compliance with the Land Registration Act 2002 for enforceability against subsequent purchasers.


Baker v Craggs [2018] EWCA Civ 1126