Nazir & Anor v Begum

Factual and Procedural Background

The dispute concerns a strip of land ("Disputed Land") situated between two properties in The City. The land was originally acquired by the appellants' father, who died intestate in 2010. The appellants obtained Letters of Administration in 2019 and became registered proprietors of the Disputed Land in 2022, subsequently executing a deed of trust declaring themselves trustees for themselves as tenants in common.

The first respondent is the registered proprietor of the adjoining property, having inherited it following her late husband's death. She claims entitlement to the Disputed Land through adverse possession, asserting occupation for over ten years.

The appellants initiated proceedings in early 2022 seeking possession of the Disputed Land. The respondent defended on the basis of adverse possession, and the trial judge ruled in her favour. The appellants appealed, raising for the first time the argument that the land was subject to a statutory trust under section 33 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925, which they contended prevented adverse possession under Paragraph 12 of Schedule 6 to the Land Registration Act 2002. This point was initially permitted but ultimately dismissed on appeal, leading to the current appeal with permission granted in September 2024.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether land comprising part of a deceased person's estate, subject to the statutory trust under section 33 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925, is "subject to a trust" within the meaning of Paragraph 12 of Schedule 6 to the Land Registration Act 2002, thereby precluding adverse possession by another person.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

• The term "trust" in Paragraph 12 should not be narrowly construed and is not confined to conventional trusts.
• Parliament likely intended the meaning of "trust" in the Land Registration Act 2002 to align with its meaning in the Limitation Act 1980.
• Section 33 trusts, although lacking interests in possession, should still be considered trusts for the purposes of Paragraph 12.
• Land held by personal representatives is subject to a trust of land under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA).
• Pre-legislative materials suggest Parliament intended land held by personal representatives to fall within Paragraph 12.
• The judge's narrow interpretation leads to anomalous and perverse results.
• The use of "trust" elsewhere in the Land Registration Act 2002 is inconsistent with the judge's narrow interpretation.

Respondent's Arguments

• The statutory trust under Section 33 is not a trust in the conventional sense but a fiduciary duty imposed on personal representatives without separation of legal and equitable title.
• Where Parliament intends "trustees" to include personal representatives, it does so expressly; the absence of such provision in the Land Registration Act 2002 indicates a narrower meaning.
• The use of "trust," "trustee," and "beneficiary" elsewhere in the legislation supports the judge's interpretation.
• Historically, adverse possession claims by strangers against land held by personal representatives have been permitted, and the appellants' interpretation would reverse this long-standing position.
• The Limitation Act 1980 and Land Registration Act 2002 are not in pari materia, and the extended definition of "trust" does not apply across both statutes.
• The appellants' interpretation would produce anomalous results.
• On the second issue regarding interests in possession, the respondent conceded there was no answer to the appellants' appeal.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The central issue was statutory interpretation of whether the statutory trust under Section 33 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925 falls within the meaning of "subject to a trust" in Paragraph 12 of Schedule 6 to the Land Registration Act 2002, thereby precluding adverse possession.

The court analyzed the nature of the Section 33 trust, relying on authoritative precedent, concluding it is not a conventional trust. Personal representatives hold the entire estate during administration without separation of legal and equitable interests and owe fiduciary duties to administer the estate, but no beneficial interest vests in beneficiaries during this period.

The wording of Paragraph 12, particularly its reference to beneficiaries with interests in possession, suggests it contemplates conventional trusts with identifiable beneficiaries holding present interests, which the Section 33 trust does not constitute.

The court reviewed pre-legislative materials and found no indication that Parliament intended to protect land held in administration from adverse possession. The materials instead acknowledge the role of adverse possession in cases where registered proprietors have died and estates remain unadministered.

Arguments based on definitions of "trust" in other statutes were considered, but the court rejected the appellants' submission that the meaning should be uniform across statutes, noting that the Land Registration Act 2002 and Limitation Act 1980 operate under different regimes and purposes.

The court considered the practical consequences of the appellants' interpretation and found them anomalous and inconsistent with the legislative scheme, particularly as no trust arises until administration is granted in intestacy cases, and that adverse possession claims should not be automatically halted upon death or administration.

Consistency within the Land Registration Act 2002 was also examined, with the court concluding that the trust referred to in Paragraph 12 is the conventional trust, not the statutory trust under Section 33.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appeal, holding that land comprising part of a deceased person's estate subject to the statutory trust under Section 33 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925 is not "subject to a trust" within the meaning of Paragraph 12 of Schedule 6 to the Land Registration Act 2002.

This means such land remains capable of being acquired by adverse possession under the Land Registration Act 2002. The decision maintains the status quo, allowing adverse possession claims against land held in administration, and does not establish new precedent extending protection to estates in administration under Paragraph 12.