Devere, R (on the application of) v Land Registry

Factual and Procedural Background

This judgment concerns two renewed applications for permission to apply for judicial review relating to two decisions of the Chief Registrar to HM Land Registry to register the title of two adjacent parcels of land beneath and adjacent to the Grand Union Canal ("GUC") at Brentford in London. The first decision, dated 2 July 2010, registered the title of a stretch of the canal and adjacent riparian land ("the canal land") following an application by the British Waterways Board ("BWB") and an adjudicator's award in its favour. The registered title now stands in the name of BWB's statutory successor, the Canal & River Trust ("CRT"). The second decision, dated 6 December 2010, registered the title of an "E" shaped stretch of the old channel of the River Brent ("the old river land") following an application by the Port of London Authority ("PLA").

The applications are part of ongoing exercises by BWB/CRT and PLA to register unregistered interests in stretches of the GUC and the old River Brent and adjacent River Thames banks at Brentford. The claimant in both judicial review claims ("Plaintiff") objects to the registrations, alongside interested parties ("Interested Party 1" and "Interested Party 2"). The Defendant in both claims is the Land Registry, which has acknowledged service and filed summary grounds of defence but has not further participated.

The Plaintiff's objections arise from claimed rights to moor crafts at moorings on the canal land and concerns about PLA's registration attempts relating to riverbank land where the Plaintiff has moored a houseboat. The Plaintiff contends that the grounds of objection to all three applications are inter-related and share essential common features.

The judicial review claims involve detailed consideration of previous litigation and disputes involving the Plaintiff, Interested Party 1, Interested Party 2, BWB/CRT, and PLA concerning mooring rights, ownership, and registration of the relevant lands and waterways. The history includes numerous legal proceedings, injunctions, and adjudications addressing possession, title, and statutory authority over the canal and river beds and banks.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Chief Registrar's decisions to register titles to the canal land and old river land were lawful and valid.
2. Whether the Plaintiff and interested parties have any proprietary or possessory rights that prevent or affect the registration of these titles.
3. Whether the adjudicator's determinations and directions relating to the registration applications were correct and binding.
4. Whether the Plaintiff's judicial review claims are an abuse of process due to prior conclusive findings and his bankruptcy status.
5. The extent and nature of statutory powers held by BWB/CRT and PLA regarding navigation, mooring, and registration of waterways and adjacent lands.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The Plaintiff claims entitlement to moor crafts at specific moorings on the canal land and adjacent riverbank areas.
• The Plaintiff asserts that BWB/CRT and PLA lack proper title to the lands registered, including claims that parts of the canal land are foreshore land held by the Church Commissioners and that the registration is therefore invalid.
• The Plaintiff argues that the adjudicator improperly limited the scope of objections to the width of the canal land, excluding other grounds such as manorial ownership and title defects.
• The Plaintiff alleges fraudulent or forged evidence was used by BWB in support of the registration applications.
• The Plaintiff contends that the registration decisions unlawfully interfere with his rights to moor and navigate, including potential breaches of human rights.
• The Plaintiff challenges the efficacy of agreements between BWB and PLA concerning the respective registration applications.

Interested Party 1's Arguments

• Interested Party 1 supports the Plaintiff’s objections on similar grounds regarding the extent of BWB's ownership and the width of the canal land.
• He alleges that BWB targeted his wharf to facilitate adjacent development and that evidence supporting BWB's registration was forged or false, though no supporting evidence was provided.
• Interested Party 1 did not actively object to the registration or participate vigorously in the adjudication process.

Interested Party 2's Arguments

• Interested Party 2 and his company have been involved in separate litigation concerning title to canal bank land and mooring rights.
• He contends that BWB owns part of the canal bank but disputes remain concerning boundary lines and ownership of adjacent "bridge land".
• Interested Party 2 does not assert ownership of the canal bed but claims riparian rights to moor vessels permanently without BWB’s permission.
• He argues that BWB lacked statutory power to serve removal notices for vessels moored on certain disputed land.
• Interested Party 2 relies on recent developments including an established use certificate and ongoing applications to register title to disputed land.

Defendant's Arguments

• The Land Registry defends the registrar’s decisions as correct and lawful, supported by adjudicator determinations.
• BWB and PLA assert root of title from statutory succession and relevant Acts of Parliament, establishing ownership of the canal bed, river bed, and foreshore.
• The Land Registry and applicants maintain that objections raised are groundless or have been properly considered and rejected.
• They contend that the Plaintiff’s claims are an abuse of process, re-litigating matters conclusively decided against him.
• They assert that statutory powers to regulate navigation and mooring have been lawfully exercised.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the historical and statutory background to the ownership and registration of the canal land and adjacent river beds, including the Grand Junction Canal Act 1793 and subsequent legislative succession. It found that BWB and PLA have established root of title from the Crown through statutory succession and accepted this as sufficient to register title.

The court analysed the Plaintiff’s extensive litigation history, including multiple failed claims to ownership, possession, and mooring rights at Point Wharf and Waterman's Park, concluding that the Plaintiff has no registered or unregistered title or possessory rights to the relevant lands or moorings. The Plaintiff’s claims were found to be vexatious, misconceived, and an abuse of process, particularly given his bankruptcy status and prior adverse findings.

The court considered the adjudicator's role as an independent judicial tribunal whose decisions are binding and enforceable as court orders. It held that the registrar was obliged to give effect to the adjudicator’s decisions and had no discretion to refuse registration based on the objections raised.

The court addressed the Plaintiff’s grounds of objection, including alleged defects in title, manorial claims, and allegations of fraud, finding no evidence to support these claims. It held that any historical ownership claims had been superseded by statutory provisions and that the adjudicator and registrar properly rejected the objections as groundless or outside the scope of the adjudication.

The court also found that the Plaintiff’s attempts to challenge the registration were effectively attempts to re-litigate settled matters and were therefore abusive. The Plaintiff’s applications for judicial review were refused permission due to lack of merit and abuse of process. The Interested Party 1’s application to be joined was also refused for lack of prospects of success.

The court rejected Interested Party 2’s arguments as irrelevant to the registration applications and noted ongoing separate proceedings concerning boundary disputes and other claims that do not affect the registration decisions under review.

The court considered the limited grounds on which judicial review of registration decisions may be granted and found none applicable in these cases. It noted that the scope for court intervention in registration following adjudicator decisions is extremely limited.

Finally, the court refused Interested Party 1’s late application to be substituted as claimant, citing delay, abuse of process, and lack of prospects of success.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED PERMISSION for the Plaintiff to apply for judicial review of both registration decisions and REFUSED Interested Party 1’s application to be joined or substituted as claimant.

The direct effect of this decision is that the registrations of title to the canal land and old river land by the Land Registry, pursuant to the adjudicator’s decisions, stand and are lawful. The Plaintiff and Interested Parties have no legal entitlement to prevent the registrations or to assert proprietary rights that affect them.

No new precedent was established. The decision reinforces the binding nature of Land Registry adjudicator decisions, the limited scope for judicial review of registration decisions, and the courts’ approach to abuse of process and vexatious litigation in land registration disputes.