⇒ Sometimes even an unregistered proprietarty interest (right in rem) will take priority over a newly granted/transferred right in rem.

⇒ In other words, Schedule 3 of the Land Registration Act 2002 lists 9 unregistered right in rem which take priority over a newly granted/transferred right in rem, despite these listed right being registered on the Charges Register. So, they override registered dispositions through section 29(2)(a)(ii) of the Land Registration Act 2002.

⇒ Don't forget: overriding interests only arise where title to the land is registered.

⇒ In summary, this says that a legal lease under 7 years is allowed to acheive legal status even if unregistered (provided of course there is a deed [if between 3-5yrs] or orally [if under 3 years]).

⇒ In summary, an unregistered legal easement will bind disponees if the disponee know about its existence, if its existence was objectively obvious (1)(b) (i.e. it obvious existed on inspection of the land), or if it is neither of these but the easement has been exercised within the last year.

⇒ Note: this paragraph deals with implied legal easements that won't have been registered (the rule in Wheeldon v Burrows), as section 27 of the Land Registration Act 2002 says that the express grant of an easement needs to be registered to get legal status.

⇒ In summary, this paragraph protects proprietary interests (i.e.right in rem) belonging to those in 'actual occupation' of land despite non-registration. So if you are in 'actual occupation' of land and have an unregistered right in rem your rights may be protected through the operation of overriding interests.

⇒ Lord Wilberforce in Williams and Glyn’s Bank v Boland [1981] said that actual occupation arose where someone had a "physical presence" on the land. In other words, he gave the phrase a literal meaning.

⇒ Actual occupation can also be proved through occupation by an agent. For example, builder's renovating your property may prove your 'actual occupation' of that property (see, for example, Lloyd's Bank v Rossett [1989]).

⇒ A "fleeting presence" is insufficient: in Abbey National Building Society v Cann [1991], Lord Oliver stated that "[actual occupation] does, in my judgment, involve some degree of permanence and continuity”.

⇒ You may also have actual possession where you have a ccontinuing intention to occupy the land despite your physical absence from the land. See, for example, the cases of Thompson v Foy [2009] and Link Lending v Bustard [2010].

⇒ Even if you are in actual occupation, the interest will not be protected if the occupation is not objectively obvious.

⇒ So, for the (unregistered) interest belonging to the person in actual occupation to be protected their occupation must have been obvious on a reasonably careful inspection of the land OR the purchaser must have had actual knowledge of the interest.

⇒ The unregistered interest (right in rem) must exist at the time of the disposition (i.e. it must exist at the time the transaction is completed by transfer and payment of purchase money).

⇒ Theoretically schedule 3 parahraph 2 could protect any unregistered right in rem.

⇒ However, there are practical limitations. For instance, right in rem such as restrictive covenants and easements do not entail 'actual occupation' of the burdened land, so would not work under this paragraph. See, for example, Chaudhary v Yavuz [2012].

⇒ More often than not, right in rem will arise in a disorganised fashion (i.e. the party doesn't realise they have the interest, most commonly seen with beneficial interest of the family home or proprietary estoppel), so will not be registered. Thus, if they are to bind disponees they will do so by virtue of Schedule 3 of the Land Registration Act 2002! Hence, this is an incredibly important part of land law!

⇒ This is probably the most common topic on registered land for both essay questions and problem questions.

⇒ Some other helpful legal resources on the disponees:

• Land Registration for the Twenty-First Century: Paragraph 8.3
• Falcon Chambers: Actual Occupation