Formalities Flashcards
(33 cards)
3 Reasons for formalities?
academic
Fuller
1. evidentiary function -> tells you who owns the property
2. cautionary function -> protects you from having your property stolen / swindled
3. channelling function -> framework to help parties understand legal process
Sources of formalities
3 statutes & their sections
- LPA 1925-> s.52, s.53, s.54
- LPMPA 1989 -> s.1, s.2
- LRA 2002 -> s.27
What does LPA s.52 cover?
- s.52 (1) -> you need a deed to convey a legal estate
- s.52(2) -> has exceptions
LPMPA s.1?
- s.1(2) -> states what a deed is
- s.1(3) -> states how a deed must be executed to be valid
What is an exception to requiring a deed?
- short leases
- LPA s.54(2)
- leases under 3 years have to take effect immediately
- Why? -> because they’re really common
case law
s.54(2) -> short leases
- Long v Tower Hamlets LBC [1998] -> must be immediate possession
- Fitzkriston LLP v Panayi [2008] -> best rent means market rent -> best rent means highest price that is reasonable
What is LRA s.27?
- s.2(b)(i) -> why do we have it?
- s.27(2)(d)
- dispositions requiring to be registered
- a lease for more than 7 years must have a deed
- idea is that weird leases are registered to let people know what to expect
- basically an easement
2 types of equitable interests
- express equitable interests
- implied equitable interests
types of implied equitable interests
- resulting and constructive trusts by themselves
- equitable interests depending on a contract
- proprietary estoppel
What formality do express equitable interests need?
- some type of signed writing under s.53 LPA
formalities for resulting & constructive trusts by themselves?
- no formalities needed
- s.53(2) LPA
formalities for equitable interests that depend on a contract?
- necessary to show that the formalities for the validity of the contract are complied with
- s.2 LPMPA
formalities for proprietary estoppel?
- not required
- in some cases where it is being relied on to give effect to an unenforceable bargain, s.2 LPMPA may prevent it from arising
What is the conveyancing process?
- Informal agreement (nothing legally binding)
- contract (legally binding)
- Completion (when money is transferred & documentation signed)
- registration (send docs to Land register to be uploaded)
What happens if step 4 is incomplete?
conveyancing process
- no legal title
- must turn to equity
Hudson v Hathway [2023]
what does it say about formalities?
- creation and transfer of property rights have to comply with formalities
- most important are s.2 LPMPA & s.53(1) LPA
- there is a distinction between them
- s.2 applies to executory contracts for disposition of land
- s.53(1) applies to instruments which effect immediate disposition
4 equitable doctrines arising out of conveyancing process
- express equitable interests
- estate contract under Walsh v Lonsdale
- Constructive trusts
- proprietary estoppel
LPA s.53?
- general writing requirements for equitable instruments
Formalities requirements for a contract for the sale of an interest in land
- s.2 LPMPA 1989
Estate Contract formalities?
3 cases
- Holroyd v Marshall [1862] -> a contract for valuable consideration passes the beneficial interest along
- Lysaght v Edwards [1876] -> beneficial title passes to purchaser the moment you have a valid contract for sale
- Walsh v Lonsdale [1882] -> when tenant holds a lease under agreement, he holds it in equity as if the lease had been granted
How do constructive trusts arise?
case
- Matchmove Ltd v Dowding [2016]
1. where there was an express agreement between the parties
2. relied upon by the claimant
3. to his detriment such that
4. it would be unconscionable for D to deny C’s ownership of property
When can you not rely on constructive trusts?
case
- Herbert v Doyle [2010]
- when there is an express intention for an agreement
Which cases support the view that s.2 LPMPA can exclude claims of proprietary estoppel?
- Yaxley v Gotts [2000]
- Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd [2008]
-> states that s.2 LMPMA makes void any agreement that doesn’t comply with formalities
-> makes exceptions for resulting, implied, constructive trusts
-> BUT prop. estop. doesn’t have that exception -> equity can’t contradict statute
Which cases say that proprietary estoppel may not be excluded by s.2 LPMPA?
- Thorner v Major [2009]
-> s.2 doesn’t impact a straightforward estoppel claim w/o contractual connection - Howe v Gossop [2021]
-> s.2 LPMPA won’t inhibit proprietary estoppel when it isn’t enforcing a non-compliant contract
