Searches and enquiries

The underlying principle in property transactions is ‘caveat emptor’ or ‘let the buyer beware’.

A seller is only obliged to disclose latent defects in title and therefore a buyer should carry out their own investigation of title and put in hand their own searches and enquiries in order to be fully informed before they proceed with a property acquisition.

See Practice Note: Property—enquiries before contract.

Title—registered and unregistered land

Title is almost invariably deduced before exchange of contracts. Contracts now routinely prohibit any objection to or requisition on title after exchange of contracts, unless it relates to a matter revealed by a pre-completion search.

Where contracts are exchanged before title is deduced, the seller must be extremely careful to ensure that there are no technical difficulties with their title and that any such are properly reflected in the contract. This is why it is preferable from the seller’s point of view (as well as the buyer’s) for title to be deduced and investigated before exchange of contracts.

In the rare cases where title is not deduced and investigated before exchange, the seller will deduce title on (or

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Property News

Market value, distributions and notional transactions—key SDLT lessons from Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC

Tax analysis: In Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC, the Court of Appeal considered the basis on which stamp duty land tax (SDLT) should be assessed and whether that resulted in SDLT being paid on the market value, the actual consideration paid, or on some other basis for a complex transaction within a corporate group. The taxpayer argued that the ‘Case 3’ exception under section 54(4) of the Finance Act 2003 (FA 2003) applied, which would result in SDLT being charged on the actual consideration. HMRC argued that the exception did not apply, which would result in SDLT being paid on the market value of the property. Alternatively, HMRC argued that if the exception did apply then the anti-avoidance provisions at FA 2003, s 75A applied, potentially resulting in an even higher SDLT charge. The Court of Appeal held that although the Case 3 exception applied, the anti-avoidance provision in FA 2003, s 75A also applied. This resulted in SDLT being assessed on an aggregate amount that was even higher than the property's market value (although HMRC did not seek to increase its assessment beyond market value). Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. As explained by Jon Stevens, partner, and Rory Clarke, solicitor, at DWF Law LLP, this decision deals with the interaction of a number of complex SDLT provisions and clarifies the SDLT provisions relating to transfers to connected companies and the SDLT anti-avoidance provisions, with implications for corporate structuring and tax planning.

View Property by content type :

Popular documents