The confusion created by the decision in Neville v Wilson is contrary to the clear requirements of s 53(1) Law of Property Act. Discuss.

Introduction: set out the requirements of certainty inherent within s 53(1) c LPA and the way to transfer an equitable interest from Timpsons v Yerbury. Perhaps mention that this section is substantive, unlike s53 (1) b LPA which is evidential.

Explanation of the decision in Oughtred v IRC from first instance to the House of Lords will establish the basis of the confusion caused by Neville v Wilson.

The majority of the House of Lords reasoning in Oughtred should be compared with the minority decision of Lord Radcliffe.

Note could be made of other cases which have followed the minority decision, to indicate that it is not merely the Court of Appeal in Neville v Wilson that holds this view. See Holt's Settlement [1969] 1 Ch 100 or DHN Foods Distribution v Tower Hamlets BC [1976] 1 WLR 852.

Explain that the cases are looking for a specifically enforceable contract, and consider if this is necessary, see Lord Wilberforce in Chinn v Collins [1981] AC 533.

Then an analysis of the Court of Appeal reasoning in Neville, especially how they felt able to depart from the binding decision of the House of Lords in Oughtred.

Explain how implied trusts can be used and that s 53(1) c LPA was not intended to be inflexible as can be seen by s 53(2) LPA, which applies to the operation of implied trusts not just their creation.

A reasoned conclusion as to your view of the correctness of the statement.