header-logo header-logo

Section 2 turns 25

23 October 2014 / John Sharples
Issue: 7627 / Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail
sharples

Is it a happy birthday for s 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, asks John Sharples

Children don’t always turn out as hoped or achieve what they were intended to. Twenty-five years after s 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 came into force it is a good time to ask: has it done the job it was meant to?

Under the old law, oral land contracts were enforceable if supported by a written memorandum or part-performance. The result was in many cases uncertainty as to whether there was a binding agreement and, if so, what its terms were—a minefield for the unwary and a litigator’s delight. But as Lord Justice Lewison said in Shirt v Shirt [2012] EWCA Civ 1029, [2012] 3 FCR 304: “Formal requirements for the disposition of interests in land exist for a good reason. They are designed in part at least to prevent expensive disputes about half-remembered conversations which took place many years before a dispute crystallised.”

Section 2 was

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

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Private client specialist joins as partner in Taunton office

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

Finance and restructuring offering strengthened by partner hire in London

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll