NOTICE

= a reasonable person (one who acts with the care and perspicacity req by the law
in context in Q) wldve known/ discovered that fact- where knowledge is ACTUAL
knowledge including misrepresentation (if not known)
UNLESS under undue influence, duress, misrepresentation AND relationship btwn
them is non-commercial and the disposition by me to which u vitiated consent
was not to your advantage
-

This exception is as developed in Barclays Bank v O Brien & RBS v Etridge

THEN, disponee bank will AUTOMATICALLY have notice of the flaw in your
consent
Unless bank first arranges u to receive independent legal advice before u
commit yourself- then consent is deemed satisfactory

FORMALITIES
Conferment has to have evidence (needs to be evinced), proven in a particular way
-

Through writing, deed, or registration (at Land Registry)

For certainty- of what transaction comprises and if it happened at all
For Quality of the Intention- so only conferred if REALLY want to
For Visibility- so others will be able to know

Conferment on death
-

Usually by a valid will- in writing, signed by myself with 2 witnesses

In order to give visibility, can give probate- open to public inspection

Conferment inter vivos (btwn living beings)

-

Req depends on type of right. Legal Rights (easement, mortgage..)- usually req
deed (& if also req registration, is called a registrable disposition). Equitable
rights (restrictive covenant/ beneficial interest under a trust) - need to b in
writing
o BUT these differences are few, largely unjustifiable and certain to be gotten
rid of.
o Difs btwn deed and writing also v small and can be collapsed into a single,
uniform req
Deed used to req signed, sealed, delivered but seal was dropped in
1900s and req of delivery not hard. Only dif then is Deeds need
witnesses BUT this is easily obtainable esp if dealing with solicitors.
o Req of Registration has 3 shortcomings
Shld be req for deed AND registration, NOT merely an option for
conferor- so certainty, quality n visibility all accomplished (now, only
conferors resp, no mention of conferee)
Is only req for legal rights and not equitable rights (so how will they
achieve visibility?)
Registration gap will cause delay in benefits of registration
Will be solved if electronic conveyancing regime is introduced

Electronic conveyancing= conferral of right by registering it online by

accessing Land Registry computer files; will involve also conferee; no
registration gap; apply to equitable rights as well.
Unlike registrable dispositions, if any other RR is registered (eg. for equitable
rights), they can be effective against A as well as C (if you can prove an
overriding interest). BUT for registrable dispositions, if no registration, cannot
be effective against anyone.

OVERREACHING
= (relates to trustees and their property). Enables disposal of land (only if proper)
to dispones to give them full beneficial rights instead of just making them trustees
(in which case they can only SHARE rights of the land as trustees- making it harder
to market).
-

SO RR will temp become RP- dispones will not be affected by rights of the
beneficiaries when they receive land- in order to make it more marketable
Then title of the land will be of original trustees and beneficial rights belong to
dispones
Also allows the rights to reattach themselves to replacement prop (eg. Moneywhen renting previous prop, converted into rights against the money owed to
you) in order to gain max profit
Also allows to change rights to dif property if beneficiary wants to move
Land owned by >1 person MUST be owned under a trust
In order to ban overreaching & disposal, Beneficiaries need unanimous dec bt
otherwise can only BLOCK trustees frm doing it or can have court order against
it
Req for proper disposal
o Consent of beneficiaries
o Act solely in beneficiaries interest
o Exercise appropriate skill and care
o 2 trustees rule (ensure money produced by disposition is paid to at least 2
trustees)- protect beneficiaries by reducing chances of money being
embezzled
If reqs are breached, beneficiaries can sue for injunction for land or for financial
reliefe, also have implications on dispone
Restriction= entry on the register recording the duty- can only be eneterd if
the obedience of the req can b easily verified by Registry staff (easy to verify
consent of beneficiaries BUT hard to validate if trustees exercised it with care)
o If thy didnt register restrictions & disposal carried out properly, disposition
still goes through
o Before s26 Land Registration Act 2002, if improperly carried out, land will
still be given to dispone following the case of Williams v Boland (2
trustees case) BUT not overreached
o After 2002, if not a registered restriction it is taken tht thr was NO SUCH
duty for proper disposal in the first place SO land can be disposed AND
overreached

EXCEPT regarding the 2 trustees rule, THEN use old rule as in Williams
v Boland (not sure yet by court but widely accepted by
commentators)
BCZ need s26 to ensure tht a dispone can anticipate difficulty over an
impropriety- bcz otherwise they wont know RISK of Propriety and risk of
being BOUND by the interest. But this dsnt apply to the 2 trustees rule
bcz they would be aware of such risks if it was breached anyway
(easy). Thats why not applicable to s26.
Schedule 3 of the Land Registration Act 2002- If beneficiary is actual and
apparent occupation of the land when the trustees dispose of it, his
unoverreached right will therefore generally operate as an overriding interest
to bind the disponee. (in cases whr not registered but did properly)
o UNLESS Beneficiary consents for it not to be an overriding interest
(Consent Principle)
o Consent usually can be implied if the disponor and the owner of the right
are in close connection (almost exclusively in cases where they live
together)
o In principle, can be used for all types of RR but important in Trusts