GIDEON ALAN WHITE, Eildon View, Charlesfield, St Boswells, Melrose, Roxburghshire, per Harper Macleod LLP, Solicitors, Citypoint, 65 Haymarket Terrace, Edinburgh (Applicant)

(One) TREVOR HOWARD JACKSON, Charlesfield Farm, Charlesfield, St Boswells, Melrose (Interested Party)

THE KEEPER OF THE REGISTERS OF SCOTLAND, per Scottish Government Legal Directorate, Litigation Division, GA North, Victoria Quay, Edinburgh (The Keeper)

Application under section 82 of the Land Registration etc. (Scotland) Act 2012 in respect of subjects

Site 2 and Site 3, Charlesfield, St Boswells, Melrose, Roxburghshire

EDINBURGH 1 November 2019

The Lands Tribunal for Scotland, having considered the above unopposed application and under reference to their Note below HEREBY DETERMINE (First) that the Land Register is inaccurate in that title sheet ROX9548 contains a manifest inaccuracy; and (Second) that in order to rectify the inaccuracy the Keeper requires to remove from said ROX9548 the area shown edged and hatched red on the plan annexed and signed as relative hereto (which plan is a copy of the plan attached to the Registers of Scotland Pre-Registration Plans Report relating to the above subjects dated 22 July 2018).


Note: This is an unopposed referral to the Tribunal of a question relating to the accuracy of the Land Register and what is needed to rectify any inaccuracy in terms of sec 82 of the Land Registration etc. (Scotland) Act 2012 (“the 2012 Act”).

The applicant avers that land belonging to him at Charlesfield, St Boswells, Roxburghshire, has wrongly been included in Land Register title number ROX9548 in the name of Trevor Howard Jackson. The Keeper agrees but has felt unable to correct the resultant inaccuracy in the Register because Mr Jackson enjoys the presumption that he was proprietor in possession for the purposes of sec 9(3) of the Land Registration (Scotland) Act 1979 contained in para 18 of Schedule 4 to the 2012 Act. If he was such a proprietor and rectification of the Register would prejudice him the result would be that the inaccuracy could not be rectified, or, more accurately, that the entry would be deemed to cease to be an inaccuracy in terms of para 22 of Schedule 4.

In the present case Mr Jackson has declined to consent to the rectification, having been invited to do so by the applicant, but neither has he entered this process to oppose the application. In these circumstances the only information available to the Tribunal is the applicant’s averment, at para 4 of the application, that he, the applicant, has been the proprietor in possession since at least March 1996. Since that averment is unchallenged the Tribunal is entitled to give effect to it. Moreover, even if Mr Jackson does enjoy the statutory presumption, there is no averment before us that rectification would cause him prejudice. Accordingly we have pronounced the foregoing order without further procedure.