The Doctrine of Notice

The modern day perception of the doctrine of notice has its roots in the ancient idea of ‘equity’s darling’, which has become known as the bone fide purchaser rule, or a ‘bone fide purchaser for value without notice, actual, constructive or imputed’. This is a term used in the law of real property to refer to an innocent party who purchases property without being given (any or all) notification of third party claims that may exist in relation to the title in that property. Such a person must acquire the title to that property ‘bona fide’ [Latin: In good faith], and have purchased it for actual consideration in economic terms i.e. for money, rather than as a beneficiary of a gift or a trust (which would be nominal consideration). Indeed, James LJ stated that the plea of purchase for valuable consideration without notice was “…an absolute, unqualified, unanswerable defence”.

“Equity’s darling may well have been originally designed to promote the ideas of substantive justice; but in reality, and to use an equally revered metaphor of Trust Law, she was very much ‘money’s mistress’”. In other words, the doctrine of notice was developed to ensure that the owner of the legal title would be aware of all the equitable interests associated with that title, thereby not becoming encumbered by them, and that it was in the interests of both contracting parties (seller and buyer) that notification of such equitable interests be given. Such was the aim of the Land Charges Act 1925.

This is a very important consideration in law because, if such a person purchased a property free of those interests, and, more importantly, can show that they were genuinely unaware of any third-party interests in the land, then those third party equitable interests are effectively extinguished. This leaves the erstwhile owners of such interests with only one course of action left open to them – an action in court against whoever granted them the equitable rights in the first place (which in itself can often prove complicated, as equitable interests such as easements, rights, privileges, co-ownership interests, lodgers and joint tenants etc., are often granted as part of a beneficiary e.g., such as in a will. The person(s) who granted these interests may in fact be deceased!).

There are a couple of exceptions worthy of note: a) if the equitable interest(s) in question have been entered on the Land Charges Register, then they will bind a future purchaser with or without notice having been given, and, b) if the purchaser has received constructive notice of the equitable interest(s) prior to the purchase then a court will usually deem that person to have received notice of all such equitable interest(s) (basically, they knew that third party(s) had equitable interest(s) in the land, but chose to ignore them, or, pretended not to have knowledge of them at all).

This second exception however, can work in both directions of course… if a potential purchaser of real property decides not to bother looking into the details of any equitable interest(s) (should they exist), and later discovers after having purchased the property that such interest(s) do in fact exist, then they have no recourse open to them – caveat emptor (another property law doctrine from ancient times) – let the buyer beware!

One very valid criticism of the Land Charges Act system is that because registration is the sole criterion of whether an interest is binding or not [LCA1972 s.4], it may operate unfairly i.e. its provisions may be used to deliberately evade interests of which a purchaser has actual knowledge (Midland Bank Trust Co. v Green [1981] AC 583).

The doctrine of notice applied therefore to the enforceability of all sales of real property until the introduction of the Land Registration Act 1925. This act defined a simple list (LRA1925 s.70(1)) of accepted ‘liability of registered land to overriding interests’ [i.e. when a person buys a legal estate in land which has a registered title, that person would not be bound by any third-party interests in that land unless they were entered on the Land Register, or, were deemed to be overriding].

The LRA1925 has now been repealed and replaced with the Land Registration Act 2002, which came into force on 13 October 2003. Intended to simplify and modernise the law of land registration, the LRA2002 still retains overriding interests (although they are now referred to as ‘unregistered interests that override’, but also “…removed the relatively simple definitions found in the old s.70(1) of LRA1925 and replaced it with two statutory Schedules, one of which (Schedule 3) might well have been written in part by a monkey with a typewriter. Paragraph 3 of the new Schedule 3, on easements, is almost unintelligible unless one knows beforehand what it is supposed to mean”.

One could be forgiven for being critical at this point in saying that this hardly looks like being a form of simplification, and yet, this is because some of the changes in LRA2002 are very subtle indeed: Firstly, the wording of Schedule 1(2) and Schedule 3(2) ‘so far as relating to land of which he is in actual occupation’ has been inserted to remove the effects of Ferrishurst Ltd v Wallcite Ltd. In that case the Court of Appeal was faced with the interpretation of LRA1925 s.70(1)(g) and questions raised concerning the ‘exigibility’ or ‘durability’ of property interests which allowed actual occupation to be enforced against the entire title, rather than the land actually occupied [Controversially, the Court of Appeal ruled that as the option to purchase was over the entire title, the claimant could exercise it over the entire title even though only in occupation of part of the land].

Secondly, there is now a duty on the transferee of a registered title to disclose third party interest(s) affecting the estate (when they apply to be the new registered proprietor) [LRA2002 s.71]; failure to do so does not however render the interest(s) invalid, and in such a case will continue to bind the new owner if the interest(s) qualify under LRA2002 Schedule 3 (although, even some of these so-called ‘sunset’ interests will lose their overriding status 10 years after the Schedule entered force).  

Thirdly, it was the undoubted intention of the statute makers of LCA1972 and LRA2002 to work towards the implementation of a more coherent system of land registration – one in which all the records of equitable interests, the various charges and other rights held in the land could be made readily available, easily and quickly, thereby aiding the sale and disposition of land. To that end, LRA2002 introduced the possibility of electronic conveyancing (LRA2002 s.91), and although the act does have the provision within it for DIY conveyancing through electronic means, we are still some way off e-register terminals at Tesco.

Perhaps my greatest criticism of LRA2002 however, is that it could have gone so much further towards enforcing the registration of unregistered land – and did not do so. For that to happen, we must all wait for the next ‘big thing’ in land law legislation.

Conclusion

So, where does all that leave us today? Well, in my opinion, the views of the author in the statement are at the very least, far too broad, and, at worst, completely incorrect.

It is true to say that, were all the land in the United Kingdom safely entered as part of the Land Registry, then the doctrine of notice would serve little purpose. However, the stark fact of the matter is that as of 2007, only 85% of the land in the United Kingdom is registered – which of course still leaves a staggering 15% of land unregistered (some 14,200 square miles!).

Of course, all that unregistered land is not in one place. We are talking about small patches of land here and there, dotted all over the place (which, none the less, adds up to an area somewhat larger than the Kingdom of Belgium!).

The question consequently, must hinge on whether there is any likelihood of this land ever becoming registered, thus rendering the said doctrine obsolete. This is harder to predict than at first it might seem. As I have already pointed out, the definitive aim of the statute-makers of 1925, 1936, 1969, 1972, 1986, 1988, 1997 and 2002, was to see all land in the United Kingdom entered on the Land Register; but efforts in earlier times to co-ordinate a system of land registration had proved just as ineffective as those of the 20th and 21st Century.

Therefore, unless some extraordinarily sweeping piece of legislation is brought into law at some point in the future – legislation which would enforces the registration of all the 14,200 square miles of currently unregistered land – then the obvious conclusion must remain that the doctrine of notice cannot, and indeed should not [yet] be consigned to the history books. It may only serve a limited and rapidly diminishing purpose, but for those who still rely on ‘equity’s darling’, it is a vital piece of British law.

                                                                                (2,090 words)

References:

Hill, J.: ‘Overriding Interests: Occupation of Part of the Land’, The Modern Law Review, Vol.63, No.1, January 2000, pp113-119

Dyer, C.: ‘Britain’s biggest ever land-grab’, The Guardian, 9 July 2002, p6

Dixon, M.: ‘Protecting third party interests under the Land Registration Act 2002’, Student Law Review, Vol.45, Summer 2005, pp51-52

Dixon, M.: ‘The Land Registration Act 2002: what is all the fuss about?’, Student Law Review, Vol.47, Spring 2006, pp52-53

The K-Zone ‘Doctrine of Notice’ [Online] Available at  (Accessed on 21 December 2006)

City University London ‘Lawbore Forum’ [Online] Available at  (Accessed on 27 December 2006)

United Kingdom Office for National Statistics [Online] Available at  (Accessed on 3 January 2007)

Bibliography:

HEGEL, G.W.F.: ‘Lectures on the Philosophy of History [1830]’, (originally edited and published by Eduard Gans, 1837)

BRIGHT, S., DEWAR, J. (eds): ‘Land Law: Themes and Perspectives’, (Oxford University Press, 1998)

GRAY, J.: ‘Lawyers Latin: A Vade-Mecum’, (Hale, 2002)

MACKENZIE, J.A., PHILIPS, M.: ‘Textbook on Land Law’, 10th Edition, (Oxford University Press, 2004)

BRAY, J.: ‘Unlocking Land Law’, (Hodder & Stoughton, 2004)

STEVENS, J., PEARCE, R.A.: ‘Land Law’, 3rd Edition, (Sweet & Maxwell, 2005)

WILKIE, M., LUXTON, P., MALCOLM, R.: ‘Blackstone’s Questions & Answers: Land Law 2005-2006’, 5th Edition, (Oxford University Press, 2005)

THOMAS, M.: ‘Blackstone’s Statutes on Property Law 2005-2006’, 13th Edition, (Oxford University Press, 2005)

GRAY, K., GRAY, S.: ‘Land Law – Core Text Series’, 4th Edition, (Oxford University Press, 2006)

‘Cavendish Lawmaps – Land Law’, (Cavendish Publishing, 2004)

Land Registry Act 1862 (c.53, 1862)

Land Transfer Act 1875 (c.87, 1875)

Land Transfer Act 1897 (c.65, 1897)

Law of Property Act 1925 (c.20, 1925)

Land Registration Act 1925 (c.21, 1925)

Law Charges Act 1925 (c.22, 1925)

Land Registration Act 1936 (c.26, 1936)

Law of Property Act 1969 (c.59, 1969)

Land Registration and Charges Act 1971 (c.54, 1971)

Land Charges Act 1972 (c.61, 1972)

Land Registration Act 1986 (c.26, 1986)

Land Registration Act 1988 (c.3, 1988)

Land Registration Act 1997 (c.2, 1997)

Land Registration Act 2002 (c.9, 2002)

Pilcher v Rawlins (1872) 7 Ch App 259

Williams & Glyn’s Bank Ltd v Boland [1981] AC487

Midland Bank Trust Co. v Green [1981] AC 583

City of London Building Society v Flegg [1988] AC 54

Ferrishurst Ltd v Wallcite Ltd [1999] 2 WLR 667

‘Land Registration for the Twenty-First Century: A Consultative Document’, Law Commission Report No.254 (1998)

United Kingdom Office for National Statistics

Student Law Review

The Modern Law Review

Factiva

Lawtel

LexisNexis

WestlawUK

---