Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989

Last updated

Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989
Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom (variant 1, 1952-2022).svg
Long title An Act to make new provision with respect to deeds and their execution and contracts for the sale or other disposition of interests in land; and to abolish the rule of law known as the rule in Bain v. Fothergill.
Citation 1989 c. 34
Territorial extent England and Wales
Dates
Royal assent 27 July 1989
Commencement 27 September 1989 (in part)
31 July 1990 (remainder) [1]
Status: Amended
Text of statute as originally enacted
Text of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from legislation.gov.uk.

The Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 (c. 34) is a United Kingdom act of Parliament, which laid down a number of significant revisions to English property law.

Contents

Nature of reforms

The Act introduced several distinct reforms:

  • The common law rules governing the form and delivery of a deed were abolished, and were replaced by requirements that:
    • a deed is valid only when expressed as such,
    • it is either signed by an individual in the presence of a witness who attests to it, or at his direction and attested by two witnesses, and
    • it is delivered as a deed by him or a person authorised to do so on his behalf. [2]
  • Contracts for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land must be made in writing, and they must incorporate all agreed terms in "one document or, where contracts are exchanged, in each". [3] Section 2 in part reads:
(1) A contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land can only be made in writing and only by incorporating all the terms which the parties have expressly agreed in one document or, where contracts are exchanged, in each.
(2) The terms may be incorporated in a document either by being set out in it or by reference to some other document.
(3) The document incorporating the terms or, where contracts are exchanged, one of the documents incorporating them (but not necessarily the same one) must be signed by or on behalf of each party to the contract. [3]
  • The rule of law known as the rule in Bain v. Fothergill [4] (where, in an action for breach of contract for the sale of land because of failure of title without fraud, the plaintiff may recover his expenses but not consequential damages for loss of the benefit of the bargain) was abolished. [5] In registered land since the Land Registration Act 2002 such actions no longer occur due to the guarantee of title of the Land Registry where no fraud has been carried out or contributed to by the seller/transferor. In unregistered land (less than 16% of land) it is the policy that as in other areas of law the purchaser/recipient of land, entitled to good title, should be compensated as the court sees fit, subject to specific binding precedent decisions, without such an absolute bar on damages.

Subsequent jurisprudence

Validity of execution under Mercury

S. 1(3) of the Act provides that:

An instrument is validly executed as a deed by an individual if, and only if—

(a) it is signed—
(i) by him in the presence of a witness who attests the signature; or
(ii) at his direction and in his presence and the presence of two witnesses who each attest the signature; and
(b) it is delivered as a deed by him or a person authorised to do so on his behalf.

In its 2008 decision in the Mercury Tax Group case, the High Court of England and Wales expressed in obiter that the recycling of signature pages from earlier drafts rendered the agreements in question invalid as deeds under the Act. [6] Taken together with previous jurisprudence on the execution of documents in the Court of Appeal for England and Wales, [7] the Law Society of England and Wales has issued guidance as to what steps are necessary in order to validly execute deeds and other documents executed in counterpart in electronic or virtual signings or closings:

Available methods of execution by type of document [8] [9]
Type of DocumentOption 1- Return entire PDF/Word document plus signature pageOption 2 - Return signature page onlyOption 3 - Advance pre-signed signature pages
DeedsYesNoNo
Real estate contractsYesNoNo
Guarantees (stand-alone or contained in simple contracts)YesYesYes
Simple contracts (not incorporating any of the above)YesYesYes

Land contracts

Section 2 deals with contracts for the creation or sale of legal estates or interests in land, and not with documents that transfer such estates or interests. [10]

The Court of Appeal has noted which types of agreements fall either within the Act or outside of it:

... Section 2 is concerned with contracts for the creation or sale of legal estates or interests in land, not with documents which actually create or transfer such estates or interests. So a contract to transfer a freehold or a lease in the future, a contract to grant a lease in the future, or a contract for a mortgage in the future, are all within the reach of the section, provided of course the ultimate subject matter is land. However, an actual transfer, conveyance or assignment, an actual lease, or an actual mortgage are not within the scope of section 2 at all. [11]

The "single document" requirement is strictly applied: Lord Justice Rimer observed in Keay & Anor v Morris Homes (West Midlands) Ltd. (2012) regarding section 2(1) that:

... Its effect is merciless. An appropriately signed document purporting to amount to a contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land will not in fact create a valid contract unless it includes all the expressly agreed terms of the sale or other disposition. If it fails do so it will be void... [12]

The Court has given guidance on circumstances where a land contract can be avoided under s. 2: [13]

  1. A party seeking to avoid must identify a term which the parties have expressly agreed, which is not to be found in the single, or exchanged, signed document.
  2. It is not sufficient merely to show that the land contract formed part of a larger transaction which was subject to other expressly agreed terms which are absent from the land contract.
  3. The expressly agreed term must, if it is required by section 2 to be included in the single document, be a term of the sale of the land, rather than a term of some simultaneous contract (whether for the sale of a chattel or the provision of a service) which happens to take place at the same time as the land contract, and to form part of one commercial transaction.
  4. S. 2(1) does not prohibit parties from structuring a transaction, for example, for the sale of the whole of a company's assets, in such a way that the land sale is dealt with in a different document from the sale of stock, work in progress or goodwill, unless the sale of the land is conditional upon the sale of the other assets.

Proprietary estoppel

S. 2 of the Act repealed s. 40 of the Law of Property Act 1925, thus abolishing the equitable doctrine of part performance with respect to dispositions of interests in land, which had been recommended by the Law Commission of England and Wales. [14] Although the Commission believed that the equitable doctrines of promissory estoppel and proprietary estoppel would still be available to provide relief, [15] the House of Lords has subsequently held [16] that such relief was not available. As Lord Scott of Foscote stated in his speech:

29.... proprietary estoppel cannot be prayed in aid in order to render enforceable an agreement that statute has declared to be void. The proposition that an owner of land can be estopped from asserting that an agreement is void for want of compliance with the requirements of section 2 is, in my opinion, unacceptable. The assertion is no more than the statute provides. Equity can surely not contradict the statute....

This mirrors the observation that "The doctrine of estoppel may not be invoked to render valid a transaction which the legislature has, on grounds of general public policy, enacted is to be invalid," [17] which has been cited in other cases in the matter by the Court of Appeal. [18] [19] The constructive trust remedy that is available under s. 2(5) of the Act, however, operates under principles distinct from those of estoppel, which can lead to problems in application and enforcement. [20] Academic discussion suggests that estoppel may still be available in situations outside of s. 2 on its own terms. [21]

Further reading

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Estoppel</span> Preventive judicial device in common law

Estoppel is a judicial device in common law legal systems whereby a court may prevent or "estop" a person from making assertions or from going back on their word; the person so prevented is said to be "estopped". Estoppel may prevent someone from bringing a particular claim. Legal doctrines of estoppel are based in both common law and equity. Estoppel is also a concept in international law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Estoppel in English law</span>

Estoppel in English law is a doctrine that may be used in certain situations to prevent a person from relying upon certain rights, or upon a set of facts which is different from an earlier set of facts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English trust law</span> Creation and protection of asset funds

English trust law concerns the protection of assets, usually when they are held by one party for another's benefit. Trusts were a creation of the English law of property and obligations, and share a subsequent history with countries across the Commonwealth and the United States. Trusts developed when claimants in property disputes were dissatisfied with the common law courts and petitioned the King for a just and equitable result. On the King's behalf, the Lord Chancellor developed a parallel justice system in the Court of Chancery, commonly referred as equity. Historically, trusts have mostly been used where people have left money in a will, or created family settlements, charities, or some types of business venture. After the Judicature Act 1873, England's courts of equity and common law were merged, and equitable principles took precedence. Today, trusts play an important role in financial investment, especially in unit trusts and in pension trusts. Although people are generally free to set the terms of trusts in any way they like, there is a growing body of legislation to protect beneficiaries or regulate the trust relationship, including the Trustee Act 1925, Trustee Investments Act 1961, Recognition of Trusts Act 1987, Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, Trustee Act 2000, Pensions Act 1995, Pensions Act 2004 and Charities Act 2011.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sale of Goods Act 1979</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Sale of Goods Act 1979 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which regulated English contract law and UK commercial law in respect of goods that are sold and bought. The Act consolidated the original Sale of Goods Act 1893 and subsequent legislation, which in turn had codified and consolidated the law. Since 1979, there have been numerous minor statutory amendments and additions to the 1979 act. It was replaced for some aspects of consumer contracts from 1 October 2015 by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 but remains the primary legislation underpinning business-to-business transactions involving selling or buying goods.

For the oil and gas terminology of overriding royalty interest, pleasesee Overriding Royalty Interest.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English contract law</span> Law of contracts in England and Wales

English contract law is the body of law that regulates legally binding agreements in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the Industrial Revolution, it shares a heritage with countries across the Commonwealth, from membership in the European Union, continuing membership in Unidroit, and to a lesser extent the United States. Any agreement that is enforceable in court is a contract. A contract is a voluntary obligation, contrasting to the duty to not violate others rights in tort or unjust enrichment. English law places a high value on ensuring people have truly consented to the deals that bind them in court, so long as they comply with statutory and human rights.

A set of heads of agreement, heads of terms, or letter of intent is a non-binding document outlining the main issues relevant to a tentative sale, partnership, or other agreement.

Cobbe v Yeoman's Row Management Ltd[2008] UKHL 55 is a House of Lords case in English land law and relates to proprietary estoppel in the multi-property developer context. The court of final appeal awarded the project manager £150,000 on a quantum meruit basis for unjust enrichment because Yeoman's Row had received the benefit of his services without paying for that. The court refused to find or acknowledge a binding contract, prior arrangement with a third party or promise, overturning a £2m award on the basis of a possible lien arising from a promise over the property. The court found a non-binding agreement in principle, entirely subject to the owner's final say to take into account for example their view of the market; this was the basis on the facts on which the parties were proceeding.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Proprietary estoppel</span>

Proprietary estoppel is a legal claim, especially connected to English land law, which may arise in relation to rights to use the property of the owner, and may even be effective in connection with disputed transfers of ownership. Proprietary estoppel transfers rights if

The creation of express trusts in English law must involve four elements for the trust to be valid: capacity, certainty, constitution and formality. Capacity refers to the settlor's ability to create a trust in the first place; generally speaking, anyone capable of holding property can create a trust. There are exceptions for statutory bodies and corporations, and minors who usually cannot hold property can, in some circumstances, create trusts. Certainty refers to the three certainties required for a trust to be valid. The trust instrument must show certainty of intention to create a trust, certainty of what the subject matter of the trust is, and certainty of who the beneficiaries are. Where there is uncertainty for whatever reason, the trust will fail, although the courts have developed ways around this. Constitution means that for the trust to be valid, the property must have been transferred from the settlor to the trustees.

Formalities in English law are required in some kinds of transaction by English contract law and trusts law. In a limited number of cases, agreements and trusts will be unenforceable unless they meet a certain form prescribed by statute. The main kinds of formality that a statute can require are to put the transaction in writing, to make a deed, or to register it at a government registrar.

<i>Re Grays Inn Construction Co Ltd</i>

Re Gray's Inn Construction Co Ltd [1980] 1 WLR 711 is a leading UK insolvency law case, concerning the cessation of transactions without court approval after a winding up petition.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English land law</span> Law of real property in England and Wales

English land law is the law of real property in England and Wales. Because of its heavy historical and social significance, land is usually seen as the most important part of English property law. Ownership of land has its roots in the feudal system established by William the Conqueror after 1066, but is now mostly registered and sold on the real estate market. The modern law's sources derive from the old courts of common law and equity, and legislation such as the Law of Property Act 1925, the Settled Land Act 1925, the Land Charges Act 1972, the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 and the Land Registration Act 2002. At its core, English land law involves the acquisition, content and priority of rights and obligations among people with interests in land. Having a property right in land, as opposed to a contractual or some other personal right, matters because it creates priority over other people's claims, particularly if the land is sold on, the possessor goes insolvent, or when claiming various remedies, like specific performance, in court.

The South African law of lease is an area of the legal system in South Africa which describes the rules applicable to a contract of lease. This is broadly defined as a synallagmatic contract between two parties, the lessor and the lessee, in terms of which one, the lessor, binds himself to give the other, the lessee, the temporary use and enjoyment of a thing, in whole or in part, or of his services or those of another person; the lessee, meanwhile, binds himself to pay a sum of money as compensation, or rent, for that use and enjoyment. The law of lease is often discussed as a counterpart to the law of sale.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Registered land in English law</span>

Registered land in English law accounts for around 88 per cent of the total land mass. Since 1925, English land law has required that proprietary interests in land be registered, except in cases where it is necessary to protect social or family interests that cannot reasonably be expected to be registered. English law also runs a parallel system for around 12 per cent of land that remains unregistered.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Credit Suisse International v Stichting Vestia Groep</span>

Credit Suisse International v Stichting Vestia Groep[2014] EWHC 3103 (Comm) was a decision of the High Court of Justice relating to the doctrine of ultra vires and the effect of contractual representations made under an ISDA Master Agreement on the doctrine.

<i>Rock Advertising Ltd v MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd</i>

Rock Advertising Ltd v MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd[2018] UKSC 24 is a judicial decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom relating to contract law, concerning consideration and estoppel. Specifically it concerned the effectiveness of "no oral variation" clauses, which provide that any amendments or waiver in relation to the contract must be in writing.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Missives of Sale (Scots law)</span> Scottish trading law

The missives of sale, in Scots property law, are a series of formal letters between the two parties, the Buyer and the Seller, containing the contract of sale for the transfer of corporeal heritable property (land) in Scotland. The term 'land' in this article includes buildings and other structures upon land.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Disposition (Scots law)</span> Deed transferring ownership of heritable property

A disposition in Scots law is a formal deed transferring ownership of corporeal heritable property. It acts as the conveyancing stage as the second of three stages required in order to voluntarily transfer ownership of land in Scotland. The three stages are:

  1. The Contractual Stage
  2. The Conveyancing Stage
  3. The Registration Stage

First Tower Trustees Ltd v CDS Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1396 is an English contract law case, concerning the Misrepresentation Act 1967.

References

  1. "The Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 (Commencement) Order 1990", legislation.gov.uk , The National Archives, SI 1990/1175
  2. s. 1
  3. 1 2 UK Legislation, Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, section 2, accessed 9 May 2024
  4. Bain v. Fothergill, (1874) LR 7 HL 158
  5. s. 3
  6. Mercury Tax Group Ltd & Anor, R (on the application of) v HM Commissioners of Revenue & Customs & Ors [2008] EWHC 2721(Admin) at para. 40
  7. Koenigsblatt v. Sweet, [1923] 2 Ch 314
  8. "Execution of documents by virtual means". Law Society of England and Wales. 16 February 2010. Archived from the original on 6 March 2014. Retrieved 23 February 2014.
  9. Jeremy Levy. "Practical Implications of the Mercury Decision (on the Execution of Documents at Virtual Signings/Closings)". Baker & Mackenzie. Archived from the original on 5 March 2014. Retrieved 23 February 2014.
  10. John de Waal QC. "When is a Land Contract not a Land Contract? s2 LPMPA 1989 in practice". Hardwicke.
  11. Helden v Strathmore Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 542 at para. 27(11 May 2011)
  12. Keay & Anor v Morris Homes (West Midlands) Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 900 at para. 9(11 July 2012)
  13. North Eastern Properties Ltd v Coleman & Anor [2010] EWCA Civ 277 at para. 46(19 March 2010)
  14. Law Commission LC 164 1987, par. 4.13.
  15. Law Commission LC 164 1987, par. 5.1–5.5.
  16. Yeoman's Row Management Ltd & Anor v Cobbe [2008] UKHL 55 (30 July 2008)
  17. Halsbury's Laws of England (4th ed, vol 16, paragraph 962)
  18. Yaxley v Gotts & Anor [1999] EWCA Civ 3006 , [2000] Ch 162(24 June 1999), Kinane v Mackie-Conteh [2005] EWCA Civ 45 (1 February 2005)
  19. Groom 2011, p. 107.
  20. Groom 2011, p. 108.
  21. Groom 2011, p. 109.