Clause 106 - Jurisdiction
Land Registration Bill [Lords]
10:45 am
Mr Harry Barnes (North East Derbyshire, Labour)
I beg to move amendment No. 86, in page 37, line 18, at end insert—
'(c) determining appeals concerning the boundary of a registered estate, as referred to in section 60.'.
I believe that there has not been a specific debate in the other place or this House on matters relating to clause 106, except that Lord Goodhart in another place moved a probing amendment to clause 60, which refers to boundaries, in an attempt to clarify the role of the adjudicator. The functions of the adjudicator are covered by clause 106 and my amendment relates to those. The noble Lord said when moving his amendment that it
''would clarify that situation''--
on registration--
''and make it clear beyond any doubt that the adjudicator will have jurisdiction to determine the question of fixing boundaries.''--[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 July 2001; Vol. 626, c. 1606.]
I referred to those matters when I spoke on clause 60.
I am attempting in the amendment to add to the functions of the adjudicator. I welcome the setting up of the office of the adjudicator by the Lord Chancellor. The adjudicator takes over certain functions that are currently undertaken by the solicitor for Her Majesty's Land Registry but is completely independent of the Land Registry and will continue to provide certain determinations cheaply, swiftly and more informally than court hearings. The independence, informality and relative cheapness of the arrangement is welcome when the registration of land and property involves issues that are often fraught with disputes.
The clause defines the areas of the adjudicator's jurisdiction. They are important but limited areas, and I hope that they will be extended and developed in future. The function provided for in the clause first deals with certain objections raised against applications for registration, which are described in clause 73(7). Secondly, it deals with determining disputes about what are known as network access agreements and thirdly, with making orders required by the High Court to correct or set aside certain dispositions and transfers of interest. If those functions were added to over time, the adjudicator could become the first port of call in a wide number of disputes before anything appeared before the courts. That would be beneficial because it would provide uncostly, quick informal decisions closely based on the records of the Land Registry.
During debates on clauses 11 and 60 I have been worried about two points. The first is boundary disputes and is addressed in the amendment, which would include such matters in the adjudicator's role.
The second relates to access ways over land, on which I tabled an amendment that has not been selected. My concerns would be addressed by amendment No. 86 because cross deeds that affect boundaries also involve areas with access problems. I dealt with a case in which three people shared access ways and certain details were included in one set of deeds, but not in another so their rights were limited. The ability to ask the adjudicator to sort out a boundary dispute would have been valuable.
I am grateful to the Minister for considering the points that I have raised and sending me a detailed letter on them on 12 December. Although he considers the cases that I raised as matters for the courts to resolve—I hope that I have correctly interpreted what he has written—he recognises that they are relevant to the consultation process when drawing up rules provided for in clause 126. He also recognises that there are possible extensions to the role of the adjudicator, particularly after the introduction of electronic conveyancing, that can be further addressed when the provisions are reviewed. I am grateful for the airing of that and the fact that the Minister has taken it seriously.
I tabled this as a probing amendment in order to place on record what has arisen during my correspondence with the Minister. I hope that we are at the start of a period in which the role of the adjudicator, when it is up and running and has acquired experience, can be extended and developed because it will be a handier way in which to deal with a dispute, and better than dragging things to the courts. Sometimes solicitors might be over-keen to encourage clients to take something to court, but that is extensive, costly and may come up with peculiar results. Being able to decide a case in a different atmosphere—one linked into but independent of Land Registry—would be of great benefit.