header-logo header-logo

22 June 2018 / Mark Pawlowski
Issue: 7798 / Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail

Leases—why a deed?

nlj_7798_pawlowski

Mark Pawlowski asks whether we should abolish the formal requirement of a deed for leases

As is widely known, a lease must be made by deed in order to be valid at law: s 52(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925. The current requirements are that (1) the document makes it clear on its face that it is intended to be a deed (2) it is validly executed as a deed by signature and attestation and (3) it is delivered as a deed: see, s 1(2) and (3) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989.

Apart, therefore, from the document containing the formal description that it is a ‘deed’ (or expressing itself to be executed or signed as a deed), execution simply requires the individual’s signature (properly witnessed) together with, what has now become, constructive delivery of the document (ie, delivery by words) without any change in its physical control to mark the essential irreversibility of the transaction. Failure, however, to use the appropriate formal wording (ie ‘signed as a deed

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
Could an online LLM in Commercial and Technology Law expand your career options?
The controversial Courts and Tribunals Bill has passed its second reading by 304 votes to 203, despite concerted opposition from the legal profession
The presumption of parental involvement is to be abolished, the Lord Chancellor David Lammy has confirmed
A highly experienced chartered legal executive has been prevented from representing her client in financial remedies proceedings, in a case that highlights the continued fallout from Mazur
Plans to commandeer 50%-75% of the interest on lawyers’ client accounts to fund the justice system overlook the cost and administrative burden of this on small and medium law firms, CILEX has warned
back-to-top-scroll