jats:pIn jats:italic<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">G</jats:styled-content>old <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">H</jats:styled-content>arp</jats:italic> v jats:italic<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">M</jats:styled-content>ac<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">L</jats:styled-content>eod</jats:italic> the <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">C</jats:styled-content>ourt of <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">A</jats:styled-content>ppeal considered paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 of the <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">L</jats:styled-content>and <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">R</jats:styled-content>egistration <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">A</jats:styled-content>ct 2002 and interpreted this provision to mean that the priority between mistakenly de‐registered interests and registered interests can be altered following rectification. The court can give the de‐registered interest the priority which it ‘would have had’ but for the mistake. In other words, it allows for retrospective rectification. This case note concludes that this is the correct interpretation of paragraph 8 and of the words ‘for the future’. However, it argues that the current range of options available to the court in terms of rectification are producing uncertainty, and that a better approach may be to rely on the priority provisions in sections 28 and 29.</jats:p>