# Priority and registration of interests in land

> **Key takeaway:** Registered: LRA 2002 ss.29–30 + Sch.3 overrides (Boland occupation). Unregistered: land charges + notice. Overreaching on payment to two trustees (Flegg). Identify system first.

- **Jurisdiction:** England & Wales
- **Practice area:** Property
- **Last reviewed:** 2026-08-04
- **Interactive page:** https://kttclegal.info/library/notes/Property/priority-and-registration-of-interests
- **Keywords:** priority, overriding interests, Land Registration Act 2002, land charges, overreaching, Boland, Flegg, actual occupation

## What is this about?

Who wins when two rights clash over the same land is answered primarily by the Land Registration Act 2002 for registered titles, and by land charges plus residual notice doctrine for unregistered titles. Overreaching and overriding interests are the practical flashpoints.

## What is the core rule?

Registered land: a registrable disposition for valuable consideration takes free of unprotected interests, subject to interests on the register and overriding interests in Sch.3 LRA 2002 (including certain actual occupation) — ss.28–30. Unregistered land: legal rights generally bind the world; equitable rights depend on notice and, for many classes, registration as land charges under the Land Charges Act 1972 (failure can void against a purchaser). Overreaching under LPA 1925 ss.2 and 27 can clear beneficial interests on payment to two trustees.

## What are the elements or test?

1. Registered or unregistered title?
2. What is the later disposition — purchaser for value?
3. Is the earlier right entered as notice/restriction or a land charge?
4. Any Sch.3 overriding interest (actual occupation)?
5. Can overreaching defeat the interest on sale?

## Which authorities matter?

- **Land Registration Act 2002, ss.28–30, Sch.3** — Basic priority rules and overriding interests for registered land.
- **Land Charges Act 1972** — Registration of land charges in unregistered land; voidness for non-registration against purchasers.
- **Williams & Glyn's Bank Ltd v Boland [1981] AC 487** — Actual occupation protecting beneficial interests as overriding (now Sch.3 analysis).
- **City of London Building Society v Flegg [1988] AC 54** — Overreaching can defeat occupation claims where capital money paid to two trustees.

## How does this apply in practice?

Always obtain official copies and search appropriately. Restrictions vs notices serve different functions. Pair with registered/unregistered land overview. Lender and conveyancing diligence is the core use-case.

## What are common pitfalls?

- Applying pure doctrine of notice to a registered title priority fight
- Missing actual occupation without inspection
- Assuming occupation always beats a mortgagee even after proper overreaching
- Wrong names/periods on land charges searches

## When would a practitioner use this?

Conveyancing risk, mortgage enforcement, and beneficial interest vs purchaser disputes.

## Quick reference

Registered: LRA 2002 ss.29–30 + Sch.3 overrides (Boland occupation). Unregistered: land charges + notice. Overreaching on payment to two trustees (Flegg). Identify system first.

---

*Reference material from [KTTC Legal](https://kttclegal.info/), not legal advice. Work product supports instructing solicitors and barristers under their supervision. England & Wales.*