Beneficial Interest Claims and Restrictions
29 Aug 2020 | Shilpa Mathuradas
Under the Land Registration Act 2002, a restriction can be entered in the register of any property or land by anybody who has a sufficient interest in it. As well as safeguarding the interest of the beneficiaries of the land, a restriction may also control or limit the way the property or land is dealt with.
In the cases of Hallman v Harkins [2019] UKUT 245 an application was made by the Tracy Harkins to the Land Registry to enter a restriction against the registered title to a property in Bootle (“the Property”) to protect her beneficial interest which she claimed to have. She had shared the Property with her partner of 13 years, Laurence Hallman. They had separated in 2016 and Mr Hallman was the sole registered proprietor of the Property. Mr Hallman objected to the application.
First Tier Tribunal conclusions on beneficial interest
The dispute was referred to the First Tier Tribunal (“FTT”) under section 73(7) of the Land Registration Act 2002. They concluded that parties had has a common intention from January 2013 that Mr Harkin should have a beneficial interest in the Property. As a result it directed the Chief Land Registrar to give effect to her application for a restriction to be entered on the register.
The FTT also went a step further and quantified Mr Harkin’s share on the basis that they had been invited to do so by the parties. By an arithmetical calculation based on the duration of the couple’s engagement relative to the length of their relationship it then concluded that her beneficial interest in the Property was 35% of the whole.
Appeal Findings
Permission to appeal was granted by the Upper Tribunal on two grounds:
- The FTT’s conclusion that the couple had pooled their resources (which Mr Hallman argued was reached without regard to the relevant parts of the evidence); and
- The FTT’s approach to the quantification of Ms Harkin’s beneficial interest (which Mr Hallman argued was arithmetically incorrect, but which is also open to the more fundamental objections that it is contrary to principle and beyond the FTT’s jurisdiction)
On appeal Martin Rodger QC made the following findings:
- The FTT was entitled to find that Mr Harkin has a beneficial interest which should be protected by a restriction;
- The FTT had no jurisdiction to determine the extent of that beneficial interest and its conclusion is not binding on the parties; and
- In any event the FTT’s view that Ms Harkin’s interest was 35% was based on an incomplete assessment of the evidence and was wrong in principle.
Often where such disputes arise at the FTT stage, it is common for parties to issue proceedings in Court and for the FTT proceedings to be stayed pending the resolution of the Court proceedings. The Court can determine the extent of a parties’ beneficial interest and therefore in the interest of costs, parties tend to pursue such claims through the Court route. Naturally, if a determination is made at Court and a party is found to have a beneficial interest, it follows that a restriction should be registered.
This case is, however, is an interesting reminder of the FTT’s jurisdiction when it comes to beneficial interest claims as often these cases can arise from disputes relating to the registration of restrictions.
Shilpa Mathuradas, Partner & Head of Property Litigation
Share this article
Contact
Shilpa Mathuradas Partner
Related InsightsVIEW ALL
9.6.2022Trusts of Land
What are trusts of land? Property ownership is not always a straightforward legal issue, particularly where the parties are cohabitees...
Read more
8.6.2022Right to Light Law
Right to Light Law in the UK Property owners have a legal right to light as set out in the...
Read more
8.6.2022Landlords and the Dangers of Rent-to-Rent
Rent-to-Rent refers to the practice of landlords letting a whole property to a tenant (usually a limited company), which is...
Read more- 30.5.2022
The uncertainties of beginning a building project now
The construction industry is seeing a perfect storm at the moment with labour shortages following Brexit and material costs which...
Read more - 9.11.2021
Can I still claim adverse possession?
The principle of “adverse possession” commonly known as “squatters rights” is a principle which allows a person who does not...
Read more 
5.10.2021Buying a property where a Party Wall Award...
Buying a house with a party wall agreement Buying a property can already be a stressful process but finding out...
Read more- 26.6.2021
The Risks Of Buying Properties Off Plan!
The Daily Mail reported recently that 300 families a week are having to move into shoddy newly built homes. Not all...
Read more 
7.5.2021Costly clauses missed by lawyers in leasehold contracts
A mum has been left facing a bill of millions of pounds a year for the ground rent of her...
Read more- 7.8.2020
House buyers and sellers should be wary of ‘...
Property raffles are a legal minefield and many are too good to be true, according to a leading lawyer. There...
Read more - 7.8.2020
Property Litigation lawyer, Shilpa Mathuradas quoted in Inside...
House buyers and sellers should be wary of ‘too good to be true’ property raffles Shilpa Mathuradas, Head of Property...
Read more - 20.5.2020
Frustration and Force Majeure – Does COVID-19 operate to...
In these unprecedented times, many business owners may be wondering if there is any way that they can cancel or...
Read more - 8.5.2020
Easements – Five Questions Answered
What is an easement? An easement is a right benefitting a piece of land (known as the dominant land) that...
Read more 
18.2.2020Overlooking Nuisance Claims – Buy some net curtains!
Last week saw the Court of Appeal reaffirmed the decision not to allow the Neo Bankside residents’ an injunction to...
Read more
6.2.2020‘Glass in Hand’ Lecture – Should we be nervous...
Hampstead residents will be able to find out about their legal rights when trees damage or overhang their property, next...
Read more- 11.10.2019
Government eviction reforms “risk increasing delays”
Government plans to end so-called ‘no fault’ evictions – and at the same time expand what amounts to a good reason...
Read more - 13.8.2019
EMA Decision: Brexit Does Not Frustrate Commercial Property...
The largely anticipated decision in the case of Canary Wharf v The European Medicines Agency has now been given. Judge...
Read more - 13.8.2019
Squatting-will the new law provide homeowners with increased...
On Saturday 1 September 2012 a new law came into force which makes squatting in a residential building an offence punishable by...
Read more - 13.8.2019
Court Grants Damages For Japanese Knotweed Infestation
The recent case of Williams v Network Rail Infrastructure [2017] has set an important precedent when dealing with Japanese knotweed. Property...
Read more - 12.8.2019
Basement developments- How to fight back
Basement developments are growing ever more popular, particularly in wealthy London boroughs, leaving homeowners fearful that neighbours’ excavation projects will...
Read more - 18.7.2019
New Builds, Poor Standards!
This week’s Dispatches programme looked at allegations of shoddy standards, poor customer care and excessive profits being made by...
Read more - 9.7.2019
EMA Decision: Brexit Does Not Frustrate Property Lease
The EMA’s appeal against the decision of the Order of Mr Justice Smith that Brexit would not frustrate the...
Read more - 8.7.2019
LEASEHOLD REFORM – GOVERNMENT RESPONDS
Last year the government invited views on how they should tackle exploitative practise in the leaseholder sector. They have now...
Read more - 10.4.2019
Tenant Fees Act 2019 – Landlords & Letting Agents be Warned
On 12 February 2019, the Tenant Fees Bill received Royal Assent and comes into effect on the 1 June 2019 The Act prevents landlord...
Read more - 25.3.2019
Court case has serious consequences for landlords recovery...
On the 21st December 2012 the High Court handed down its judgment in the case of Phillips & Godard -v- Francis &...
Read more
