Explain the approach used by judges when it comes to deciding cases in relation to section 53 (1) (c) LPA 1925

Posted: July 7th, 2022

1) Explain the approach used by judges when it comes to deciding cases in relation to section 53 (1) (c) LPA 1925 formalities and critically analyse the decisions made. 2) Milroy v Lord (1862) 4 De GF&J 264 is support for the proposition that equity

1) Explain the approach used by judges when it comes to deciding cases in relation to section 53 (1) (c) LPA 1925 formalities and critically analyse the decisions made. 2) Milroy v Lord (1862) 4 De GF&J 264 is support for the proposition that equity will not perfect an imperfect gift. However, there are a number of exceptions to this rule. Explain and critically analyse these exceptions with reference to relevant case law. 3) Paul v Constance [1977] 1 All ER 195 is a leading case relevant to which of the three certainties? Explain the facts, the legal issue at stake and the court’s decision. Critically evaluate the court’s decision in the context of the relevant certainty.

Section 53 (1) (c) of the Law of Property Act 1925 requires that a transfer of a legal estate in land must be made in writing and signed by the transferor, or else it will not be valid. The approach used by judges when deciding cases related to this section involves determining whether the formalities have been complied with or not. If they have not, the transfer will be considered invalid.
Several cases have been decided on this issue, including the famous case of Williams v Hensman (1861) which established the doctrine of equitable conversion. In this case, the court held that if the transferor had done everything necessary to transfer the property to the transferee, then equity would treat the transfer as valid even if the formalities had not been complied with.

However, this approach has been subject to criticism, particularly in cases where the parties involved are vulnerable or have been misled. For instance, in Walsh v Lonsdale (1882), the court held that where a party had taken possession of the property and made substantial improvements to it, the doctrine of equitable estoppel could be used to enforce the transfer even if the formalities had not been complied with.

Overall, the approach used by judges in deciding cases related to section 53 (1) (c) involves a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of each case, with a view to determining whether the parties intended to transfer the property and whether the interests of justice require the transfer to be enforced.

The case of Milroy v Lord (1862) established the principle that equity will not perfect an imperfect gift. This means that if the donor has not done everything necessary to transfer the property to the donee, then the gift will not be considered complete.
However, there are exceptions to this rule, including the following:

Where the donor has done everything in their power to transfer the property, but the transfer has failed due to some technicality or mistake. For instance, in Re Rose (1952), the donor had signed a transfer of property to the donee but had failed to complete the registration process. The court held that the gift was valid because the donor had done everything necessary to transfer the property.

Where the donor has made an irrevocable gift in anticipation of death. In this case, the gift will be considered complete even if the donor has not done everything necessary to transfer the property. For instance, in Re Fry (1946), the donor had signed a transfer of property to the donee but had not delivered it. The court held that the gift was valid because the donor had made an irrevocable gift in anticipation of death.

Where the donor has made a declaration of trust in favour of the donee. In this case, the donor does not need to transfer the property to the donee because the property is held on trust for the donee. For instance, in Richards v Delbridge (1874), the donor had declared that he held the property on trust for the donee. The court held that the gift was valid because the donor had made a declaration of trust.

Overall, the exceptions to the rule in Milroy v Lord demonstrate that equity is willing to intervene in certain circumstances to enforce a gift, even if the formalities have not been complied with.

The case of Paul v Constance [1977] 1 All ER 195 is a leading case on the certainty of intention. In this case, the parties were in a relationship and the defendant had given the claimant a series of gifts, including a number of valuable antiques. The claimant argued that the gifts were given with the intention of transferring the legal title to her, while the defendant argued that the gifts were given only as tokens of affection and