ABSTRACT
Under the new scheme, there are a number of deliberate omissions from both Schedules 1 and 3
(when compared to s 70(1) LRA 1925) though that is not to say that the substantive rights
apparently omitted may not find some protection elsewhere in the Schedules or be otherwise
protected by the legislation. There are a number of examples. First, equitable easements are
deliberately omitted from the Schedules, despite being recognised as overriding interests within s
70(1)(a) LRA 1925 as a result of the decision in Celsteel v Alton. The rationale for their exclusion
from Schedule 1 has been noted above and their removal from Schedule 3 further advances the
aim of ensuring that the register provides a near accurate picture of the legal state of the land.
