1925 Land Registration Act: In-Depth Analysis

Introduction

The Land Registration Act 1925 (LRA 1925) marked a major reform of property law in England and Wales. It moved the system away from proving ownership through a bundle of old deeds and towards a central register showing who owns what, with many rights and burdens recorded against the title. The aim was to make buying and selling land quicker, safer, and cheaper.

At the centre was the idea of title by registration: the person shown on the register is the legal owner, subject to entries on the register and certain rights that bind even if unrecorded (known as overriding interests). The Land Registry issued land certificates as evidence of title and recorded charges such as mortgages. Compulsory registration for defined transactions gradually pulled more and more land into the system.

The 1925 Act remained in force until replaced by the Land Registration Act 2002 (LRA 2002). Many features carry over, but the 2002 Act tightens the rules on overriding interests and broadens what must be registered. This guide explains the 1925 regime, the practical issues it raised, and how later reforms addressed them.

What You’ll Learn

• What “title by registration” meant under the LRA 1925
• How the register worked (ownership, charges, and land certificates)
• Which rights counted as overriding interests under s.70(1) LRA 1925
• When compulsory registration was required and why it mattered
• How case law shaped “actual occupation” (Boland and Cann)
• Why Midland Bank v Green mattered for unregistered rights
• Key changes under the LRA 2002, including the modern test for actual occupation
• Practical steps: enquiries, inspections, overreaching, and registration

Core Concepts

Title by Registration and the Register

Under the LRA 1925, the register was the primary record of title. Rather than relying on historic title deeds, a buyer could check the Land Registry to confirm ownership and see entries affecting the land.

What the register showed:

• Property description and plan
• The registered proprietor (legal owner)
• Charges and other entries affecting the title, such as mortgages and restrictions

Evidence of title took the form of a land certificate (and a separate charge certificate for mortgagees). Errors could be corrected, and the system included a state-backed indemnity where loss was caused by a mistake on the register.

In short, the register aimed to give a clear picture of ownership and burdens, with two important caveats:

• Some rights had to be protected by entry to bind a purchaser.
• Certain rights could bind without registration (overriding interests).

Compulsory Registration: When it was required

The 1925 Act set out a path to bring land into the register. Registration was not instantly universal; instead, it became compulsory in stages, triggered by particular transactions. Over time, this made registered land the norm.

Common triggers included:

• A transfer of the freehold for value (a sale)
• The grant or transfer of certain long leases
• Some other specified dispositions

The policy aim was simple: each time qualifying land changed hands, it would be registered, steadily reducing reliance on unregistered conveyancing.

Overriding Interests under the 1925 Act

Section 70(1) LRA 1925 listed rights that could bind a purchaser even if not recorded on the register. The rationale was that certain rights were obvious or practical to protect without formal notices, or they were inherently difficult to record in a complete way.

Typical examples under the 1925 regime included:

• Short legal leases (for a term not exceeding 21 years)
• The rights of persons in actual occupation
• Legal easements and profits à prendre

Because these rights might not appear on title, buyers had to make enquiries, inspect the property, and consider who was in occupation. Case law refined what counted as actual occupation and when it must exist to bind a purchaser.

Legal vs Equitable Rights and Overreaching

The distinction between legal and equitable rights remained important. Legal rights (such as a legal lease) generally bound third parties more readily, while equitable rights (for example, a beneficiary’s share under a trust) often needed protection by entry on the register unless overreached.

Overreaching (rooted in the Law of Property Act 1925, particularly ss.2 and 27) moves a beneficiary’s interest from the land to the sale proceeds when purchase money is paid to at least two trustees or a trust corporation. This helps a buyer take the land free of certain equitable interests. Where money is paid to only one trustee, overreaching fails, and a beneficiary in actual occupation may assert an overriding interest (as in Boland).

Note that not all rights can be overreached. For example, easements are not overreached by paying the price to two trustees; they either bind as legal rights or need proper protection under the registration rules (see Baker v Craggs for the modern position).

Key Examples or Case Studies

Williams & Glyn’s Bank Ltd v Boland [1981] AC 487

• Facts: A wife contributed to the purchase of the family home but was not a registered proprietor. She lived in the property. The husband mortgaged the property to the bank.
• Decision: The wife’s beneficial interest, coupled with actual occupation, was an overriding interest under s.70(1) and bound the bank.
• Why it matters: Always consider the rights of occupiers. Overreaching requires payment to two trustees. If that does not happen, an occupier with a qualifying equitable interest may bind the lender or buyer.

Abbey National Building Society v Cann [1991] 1 AC 56

• Facts: A buyer acquired property with the help of a mortgage. A relative claimed an overriding interest based on occupation and a contribution.
• Decision: The purchase and mortgage were one indivisible transaction. Actual occupation is assessed at the time of the disposition. There was no prior occupation that could defeat the lender.
• Why it matters: Timing is everything for overriding interests based on occupation. The “scintilla temporis” argument failed.

Midland Bank Trust Co Ltd v Green [1981] AC 513

• Facts: Concerned an unregistered estate contract over unregistered land which should have been protected by a land charge. The property was sold for value to defeat the unregistered right.
• Decision: Bad faith was irrelevant once the statutory requirements for protection were not met; an unregistered Class C(iv) land charge did not bind a purchaser for money or money’s worth.
• Why it matters: It shows the strict approach to notice and registration requirements outside the registered land system and explains why moving rights onto a clear, public register was so attractive.

Baker v Craggs [2018] EWCA Civ 112

• Facts: A buyer failed to secure registration promptly and became vulnerable to a grant of an easement to a third party. Issues arose about actual occupation and overreaching under the LRA 2002.
• Decision: Overreaching did not apply to easements. The case also confirmed the importance of timing and of securing registration to lock in priority.
• Why it matters: Rights like easements are not overreached; they must be properly created and protected. Prompt registration and priority protection are essential under the modern regime.

Practical Applications

• Check the register carefully:
  • Confirm the registered proprietor and address for service.
  • Review the title plan against the physical site.
  • Read the charges and restrictions for mortgages, restrictions on disposition, and other burdens.
• Inspect the property:
  • Look for signs of occupation by someone other than the seller.
  • Ask the standard enquiries about occupiers, leases, and informal arrangements.
• Manage overriding interests:
  • Short leases may not be on title; request copies and confirm terms.
  • For actual occupation, assess who is living or operating on the land on the relevant date.
• Handle equitable interests with care:
  • Where a trust is apparent, ensure purchase money is paid to at least two trustees or a trust corporation to achieve overreaching.
  • Check whether the title contains restrictions designed to secure overreaching on sale.
• Secure priority and registration:
  • Under the modern system, obtain a priority search and complete registration within the protected period.
  • Lodge any necessary notices or restrictions to protect rights that require entry on the register.
• Compare 1925 and 2002 rules where relevant:
  • Under LRA 2002, actual occupation must be obvious on a reasonably careful inspection or known to the buyer (Schedule 3, para 2), and exceptions apply.
  • The list of registrable interests is wider, reducing the need for unregistered categories.
• Unregistered land (if encountered):
  • Make appropriate land charges searches for pre-registration interests.
  • Consider whether first registration is required on disposition.

Tip: Keep a standard set of enquiries about occupiers, short leases, easements, and trusts. Combine document checks with a thorough site visit.

Summary Checklist

• Title by registration: the register is the main record, backed by indemnity for mistakes.
• The register records property details, the proprietor, and charges; land certificates were used under the 1925 regime.
• Overriding interests under s.70(1) LRA 1925 included short legal leases, actual occupation, and certain legal easements.
• Actual occupation must exist at the date of the relevant disposition; see Cann.
• Overreaching requires payment to at least two trustees; if not, an occupier’s equitable interest may bind (Boland).
• Compulsory registration on defined events steadily brought land into the system.
• LRA 2002 refined overriding interests and expanded registrable rights; actual occupation must be obvious on inspection or known.
• Not all rights are overreached (easements are not); see Baker v Craggs.
• Always combine register checks with physical inspection and targeted enquiries.

Quick Reference