LAND LAW COURSEWORK

Prepared By; CHRISTINA BOODOOSINGH

YEAR: 2009/2010

“A central problem addressed in the 1925 Property legislation was how to cope with the fragmentation of benefit created by the widespread use of trusts in relation to land.

Discuss, How has subsequent legislation sought to deal with this enduring problem? To what extent has it been successful? ” 

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

The aims of English property law was extensively restructured in 1925 due to its complexities and irregularities, this has been carefully and precisely summarised by Lord Upjohn1:”: “it has been the policy of the law for over a hundred years to simplify and facilitate transactions in real property. One of the most notable changes brought in by the 1925 legislation was the expansion of the registered land system. The need for a comprehensive register of title to land remained the primary ambition of law reformers for a long time. This was evident in the 1857 Royal Commission2 that aimed for the land owners “to deal with land in as simple and easy a manner, as far as title is concerned…”. The realisation of this goal was dependent ultimately upon a definitive record of the rights and obligations relating to all land in England and Wales.  As a result, the Land Registry Act (1862) introduced an early system of Land Registration.  However, the system did not prove to be workable and an entire new system was established by the Land Transfer Acts of 1875 and 1897. Although, it is true that the objectives of the Royal Commission have never been fully met by the Land Registration Act (1925), the Act (and subsequent Acts) do aim towards establishing a purposeful system for the regulation of transactions with land.  The purpose of registration was to make the transfer of land simpler, quicker, cheaper and safer. This essay aims to determine the extent to which the main aims of the Acts have been met.

FOUNDATION & AIMS OF 1925 LEGISLATION

As the main aim of LPA 1925 originated from the purpose of simplifying the conveyancing procedures and to provide safeguards to the buyer and purchaser. On purchasing a piece of land the purchaser should check that the vendor has “good title” and that there are no third party rights over the land. Before the 1925 Acts were enforced the number of legal estates that existed had soared, and there were many different ways people could hold an interest in another persons land. This was extremely unpleasant, since a buyer of land needs to know whether he is subject to any third party rights. The law stood that a legal right “is good against the whole world” (Sexton 2001:54) even if a purchaser does not know of the interest. Equitable rights are the same but they do not bind “a bona fide purchaser of the legal estate in the land for value without notice”, known as the doctrine of notice. Basically it describes a purchaser of a “legal estate” with “clean hands”. As in (Coatsworth v Johnson1886) where the purchaser did not know of the interests or wouldn’t have been expected to know. A purchaser had to be able to prove this, which often was a difficult task, as notice can be actual, constructive or imputed. Constructive notice is where notice would have been found if all the proper enquiries were made, as in Kingsnorth Finance Co. Ltd v Tizzard (1986) where it was held that the mortgagee had constructive notice of the wife's equitable interest, and therefore took subject to it. Imputed notice is where a purchaser employs an agent to investigate, and the agent fails to tell the purchaser of the notice, Pilcher  v Rawlins (1982) established, a purchaser could be interrogated to any extent as to the consideration which was given and also the presence or absence of notice. It is easy to see why a purchaser was often uncertain of their position when buying land, and the 1925 Legislation aimed to rectify these issues.

Join now!

 

Although, overhauling of the property law in England and Wales through LPA 1925 made it much easier for the purchaser to get the title free from most of the third party rights, however, it could not give the outright relaxation to the purchaser and even after its implementation most of the buyers found themselves in court sued by third parties proclaiming to have interest in property by one way or the other. These problems have been overviewed by the law commission and in LRA 2002, a defined package have been presented from which a purchaser would be benefited.

...

This is a preview of the whole essay