Unregistered land: unregistered estate contract void despite notice (LCA 1972 s.4(6))
In 2024 Martin, who owns an unregistered freehold field in Lincolnshire, England, granted his neighbour Grace an option to purchase the field, by a written agreement complying with all formalities. Grace did not register the option as a land charge. In August 2026 Martin sold and conveyed the legal estate in the field to Ellis for its full market price. Before completion Martin had told Ellis about Grace's option. Consider the position at completion of the conveyance to Ellis.
Which of the following best describes whether Grace can enforce her option against Ellis?
Choose one answer to see the reasoning.
Worked answer
Correct answer E: No, because an unregistered estate contract is void against a purchaser for money or money's worth of a legal estate in the land.
THE RULE TO REMEMBER
An estate contract (such as an option) not registered as a Class C(iv) land charge is void against a purchaser of a legal estate for money or money's worth, whatever notice the purchaser had.
Unregistered land: unregistered estate contract void despite notice (LCA 1972 s.4(6))
Title to the field is unregistered, so the Land Charges Act 1972 governs. An option to purchase is an estate contract, registrable as a Class C(iv) land charge. Section 4(6) provides that an estate contract created after 1925 is void as against a purchaser for money or money's worth of a legal estate in the land charged with it, unless it is registered before completion of the purchase. Grace did not register, and Ellis bought the legal estate for money, so the option is void against him. His knowledge of the option is irrelevant: s.199(1)(i) of the Law of Property Act 1925 provides that a purchaser is not prejudicially affected by notice of a registrable matter that is void against him for non-registration. Grace's remedy is a personal claim against Martin for breach of the option contract.
Why A is wrong: Notice of an unregistered registrable land charge does not bind a purchaser: s.4(6) LCA 1972 and s.199(1)(i) LPA 1925.
Why B is wrong: The traditional doctrine of notice does not apply to registrable land charges such as estate contracts; registration governs.
Why C is wrong: Overriding interests are a registered-land concept; in unregistered land, estate contracts depend on land charge registration.
Why D is wrong: Section 4(6) requires only a purchaser for money or money's worth, not payment of full value.
A little more practice done.
Related questions
Length of title an unregistered seller must deduce (LPA 1969, s.23)
Which of the following best describes the title Grace must deduce?
Failure to apply for first registration within two months (LRA 2002, ss.6 and 7)
Which of the following best describes the current position?
Legal leases of seven years or less as overriding interests (LRA 2002 Sch 3 para 1)
Which of the following best describes whether Callum is bound by Amara's lease?
A GOOD HABIT, DELIVERED
Tomorrow's question.
In your inbox.
One free question a day, with the answer and reasoning.
No course pitches. Just your daily practice.