Chaudhary v Yavuz 
- The defendant purchased an estate which had on it a metal staircase which provided access to the claimant’s adjoining land
- The right of access was neither registered nor noted in the defendant’s contract of purchase
- The defendant later removed the staircase
- Could the claimant claim that his right of access had been infringed upon?
- It would undermine the registration system if the right was allowed to bind a purchaser contrary to the express wording of section 29 of the Land Registration Act 2002
- The claimant could not be said to have been in actual occupation of the staircase, rendering Schedule 3, paragraph 2 irrelevant
- Both Peffer v Rigg  and Lyus v Prowsa Developments  were criticised for also undermining the registration system: actual notice and a lack of good faith should not hinder the binding nature of the registration system
Posted in Land Law Revision Notes.
This page was last updated on 4th February 2015