Chaudhary v Yavuz [2011]

Facts

  • 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

Issue

  • Could the claimant claim that his right of access had been infringed upon?

Decision

  • No

Reasoning

  • 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 [1977] and Lyus v Prowsa Developments [1982] 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
RELATED CASE  Saeed v Plustrade [2001]

Posted in Land Law Revision Notes.

This page was last updated on 4th February 2015

© 2020 Webstroke Law - Terms and Privacy Policy