RECTIFICATION OF THE REGISTER (Hansard, 22 July 1977)

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Law Officers' Department (Mr. Arthur Davidson)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton)
With this we shall take Government Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6.

§ Mr. Davidson
In moving the new clause, with which the Chair has grouped three amendments, I should say that the amendments are entirely consequential upon the new clause being accepted.
I am sure that the subject matter of the new clause is totally uncontroversial and will be welcomed. It follows a recommendation of the Law Commission, and I can assure the House that the Government have had the benefit of consultation with the Law Commission on this matter. As the House will know, one of the objects of land registration is to create certainty as to title in land. From that flows practical benefits with investigation of title and conveyancing is simpler than under the unregistered system.
I do not want to go into the rather complicated history of the Land Registration Acts, but Section 82(1) of the 1925 Act sets out a number of circumstances in which the register may be rectified, at the discretion of the registrar or the court, to correct an error or omission. That discretion is curtailed by 2118 Section 82(3), which is designed to ensure that, in general, the registered proprietor is not disturbed if he is in possession of the land.
Rectification may not be ordered against the registered proprietor in possession unless he has caused or contributed to the error or omission by his act, error or fault, or if the disposition to him was void or if for any other reason it would be unjust not to rectify the register against him. It is clear that this provision, as interpreted by the courts, does not give the proprietor the full protection that he was meant to enjoy. The Law Commission's Working Paper No. 45 suggested that the law should be altered to prevent the proprietor in possession being dispossessed unless he was to blame for the error or unless, on the basis of the hardship test, it was better to rectify the register against him than not do so. This has obtained general approval and will be confirmed in the Law Commission's forthcoming report.
I hope I have said enough to convince the House that this is an important matter and that we should not wait for the Law Commission's comprehensive report. This is a comprehensive proposal which has been welcomed in consultations and I am sure that the House will agree that this hotch-potch of a Bill is a suitable means of correcting the deficiencies in the Act.

§ Mr. Peter Temple-Morris (Leominster)
I am grateful for the clear way in which the Minister has outlined the new clause. As a lawyer I have had little to do with land, but on behalf of lawyers generally I must say that anything that simplifies this tortuous topic and encourages registration should be commended. There is an aspect of flexibility here, in the way that the courts will have an opportunity of dealing with the matter, which will benefit the system. Therefore, there is certainly no objection to the new clause.