the “Malory 2” suggestion that the right to rectify the register can take effect as an overriding interest (Swift 1st;96 Bakrania97). Not only is it fundamentally unclear how this can be a ‘right’, it also risks defeating the policy of the LRA by burdening a purchaser in a manner which deprives them of an indemnity. Swift 1st’s ‘solution’ to this issue was premised on sch.8, para 1(2)(b) LRA and is therefore of limited applicability (per Dixon).98 Thus, the Law Commission was right to support the removal of this avenue. Conclusion: To summarise, the statement’s objective assessment of the current law is plausible, albeit in need of some qualification. It is correct to say that the implications of this can threaten the two promises referenced. However, both a system of land registration and a wide approach to the alteration provisions are desirable, and can be reconciled by reforming the current one, rather than abolishing it.
96
[2015] 1 Ch 602 [2017] UKFTT 364 (PC) 98 Dixon, Martin, The Reform of Property Law and the Land Registration Act 2002: a Risk Assessment, 2003 97
27
