Having considered the 1925 Act’s historical significance and ongoing relevance, together with the synergies between the 1925 Act and Virginia Woolf’s 1925 publication of Mrs Dalloway (confused? see Article 1), we now turn to some of its lesser-known consequences - both positive and negative. These ripple effects demonstrate that even the most well-crafted laws can have outcomes their drafters never envisioned (contrary to popular belief, lawyers are, after all, only human).

Trusts and equitable interests

One of the 1925 Act’s most profound impacts was its treatment of equitable interests, particularly through the use of trusts. While this reform simplified conveyancing, it also entrenched the use of trusts in property ownership. Today, trusts are frequently employed in family law, tax planning and corporate transactions. However, they can also obscure ownership, creating transparency and regulation challenges, especially in combating money laundering.

Leasehold quandaries

The 1925 Act’s emphasis on leasehold as a primary estate in land has had far-reaching consequences. While leasehold ownership can provide flexibility, it has also become a source of controversy, particularly in the residential sector. Modern leaseholders often face challenges that the 1925 Act’s drafters could not have possibly anticipated, such as high ground rents, onerous service charges and difficulties with the intricacies of enfranchisement to name a few.

Overlooked opportunities

The 1925 Act’s promotion of title registration was visionary, yet its implementation has been uneven at best. While the 1925 Act’s little sister (also known as the Land Registration Act 1925) sought to build on this framework, title registration remains incomplete in many areas and in turn, efforts to modernise the conveyancing process have been hampered (as any property lawyers still waiting for their client’s leases to be registered at the Land Registry two years after submission will well know …).

Looking ahead

As we reflect on these unintended consequences, it becomes clear that even the most robust legal frameworks require periodic reassessment. 

In the final article, we’ll consider how property law might evolve in the next century (and luckily for me, I won’t be here in 2125 and so we’ll never know if my predictions are completely off kilter or bang on the money!). 

Other articles in the series: