THIS PAPER IS NOT TO BE REMOVED FROM THE EXAMINATION HALLS

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON LA3003 ZA

DIPLOMA IN THE COMMON LAW

LLB
BSc DEGREES WITH LAW

Property law

Thursday 19 May 2016: 10.00 – 13.15

Candidates will have THREE HOURS AND FIFTEEN MINUTES in which to

answer the questions.

Candidates should answer FOUR of the following EIGHT questions.

Candidates should answer all parts of a question unless otherwise stated.

Permitted materials
Students are permitted to bring into the examination room the following
specified document: one copy of Blackstone's Statutes on Property Law
(OUP).

© University of London 2016

UL16/0204
Page 1 of 6
1. “It would seem unlikely that many lawyers would advise a client in
adverse possession to apply to the Land Registry to be registered as
proprietor, knowing that would begin a process by which the registered
owner is traced, notified and given a very real incentive to commence
possession proceedings in a timely fashion.”

Discuss.

2. Alastair was the registered owner of Grantchester, where he lived with

his long term companion, Nick, who paid the entire purchase price.
Grantchester is a country estate that includes two fields known as
White Field and Gold Field.

Last year:

(i) Alastair granted Stephen by deed a ten year lease of

White Field.

(ii) Alastair agreed in writing to grant Dawn the right to use a

shortcut across Gold Field to access the road from her
house.

(iii) Alastair agreed, in writing, to sell Grantchester to Roger.

(iv) Nick was detained in a secure hospital having suffered a

nervous breakdown.

Last month Alastair sold Grantchester to Iggy who is now the

registered owner of Grantchester. After moving in, Iggy asked Stephen
to leave White Field and refused Dawn permission to cross Gold Field.
In the meantime Roger has asked his solicitors to complete his
purchase of Grantchester, whilst Nick is planning to return to
Grantchester on his discharge from hospital tomorrow. Alastair has
now disappeared with the proceeds of the sale, whilst Iggy has
asserted that he is not bound by Roger’s option and has changed the
locks to ensure Nick cannot let himself into the house.

(a) Advise Stephen, Dawn, Roger and Nick.

(b) Explain briefly how, if at all, your advice would differ if all the
above transactions were governed solely by the rules pertaining
to unregistered title.

3. “Rather than undermining formalities, proprietary estoppel is the critical

safeguard by which their requirements can be justified.”

Discuss.

UL16/0204
Page 2 of 6
4. “There seems little enthusiasm, or rationale, for the Certainty of Term
requirement in leases.”

Discuss.

5. Sarah was the owner of a piece of land abutting a river. Five years ago
she entered into a contract with David who covenanted to maintain the
flood defences abutting her land for the next twenty years. The
following year her neighbour Romulus divided his large area of land
into eight separate plots on each of which he began building a house to
sell. Sarah decided to do likewise dividing her smaller piece of land into
two separate plots and agreed with Romulus to create a small
exclusive estate of ten houses for sale. In order to enhance their value
and prestige, they decided to include covenants to the following effect
in each house sale. The covenants required each purchaser to agree
that:

(i) Their property would only be used for residential

purposes.

(ii) Each owner would pay 10% of the costs of maintaining

the estate’s private road.

(iii) Each owner would pay 10% of the costs of providing free
boat trips on the river.

Romulus then sold plots 1 to 8 with each purchaser entering into a

covenant with him on these terms. Sarah then sold plot 9 to Jack who
covenanted on the above terms with “Sarah and the present owners of
plots 1 to 8”. The contract also included an assignment of the benefit of
David’s covenant to maintain the flood defences. The following week
Sarah sold plot 10 to Beatrice who covenanted with Sarah in similar
terms although this time the contract made no reference to the owners
of the other plots, nor included any written assignment of the benefit of
David’s covenant.

Jack has recently converted his house into a hotel and is refusing to
pay for the maintenance of the road or the provision of boat trips, whilst
the entire estate has become waterlogged after David failed to maintain
the flood defences.

(a) Discuss.

(b) How, if at all, would your advice differ if Beatrice, rather than
Jack, was acting in breach of these covenants?

(c) How, if at all, would your advice differ if Ahmed, a successor in

title to Beatrice, was acting in breach of these covenants?

UL16/0204
Page 3 of 6
6. Andy was the registered owner and occupier of a house with an
adjoining commercial garage. In 2007, when Andy retired, he granted
Barney a lease of the garage for a period of five years. For many years
there had been a sign advertising the garage on the side wall of the
house next to the main road, however Andy removed it a few weeks
after Barney took possession of the premises. The forecourt of the
garage was quite small and Andy had occasionally parked cars
awaiting repair on the drive of his house, but, when Barney began
doing so, Andy asked him to stop. In retaliation Barney told Andy that
he would no longer be allowed to cross the garage forecourt, which
separated the drive from the main road. This prevented Andy parking
his car on the drive although it was still possible to access the drive on
foot via a footpath that ran between the forecourt and the house. A few
weeks later Andy and Barney decided they were both being petty;
Andy allowed Barney to reinstate the advertising on the side of his
house and said he could use the drive occasionally in return for Andy
being allowed to resume driving over the forecourt. In 2012 the lease
was renewed for another 5 years at which point Barney told Andy he
was, once again, no longer permitted to drive over the forecourt. Andy
consequently painted over the advertising sign and refused to let
Barney use his drive.

Discuss.

UL16/0204
Page 4 of 6
7. Ed, who owns a lease over a bar with twenty-two years remaining on
the demise, approached Babylon Brewers after his bank refused to
lend him the money he needed to renovate the bar. Babylon Brewers
agreed to lend Ed the money, repayable over 20 years, secured by
way of a legal mortgage over the bar. The mortgage deed contained
the following terms:

(i) Ed must buy all his spirits from Babylon Brewers at the
prevailing market price.

(ii) Babylon Brewers has the right of first refusal if Ed ever

decides to sell the lease.

(iii) Ed cannot redeem the mortgage for the first nineteen

years.

In 2016 Ed’s business ran into financial difficulty. When Ed missed one
loan repayment, Babylon Brewers wrote to him with evidence that he
had sold spirits supplied by one of their competitors and indicating that
Proud Prinnies PLC had enquired about the possibility of buying Ed’s
bar. Ed is about to miss a second month’s loan repayment but is keen
to stay in possession to arrange his own sale because he believes this
will maximise his chances of realising the best sale price.

Advise Ed about:

(a) the validity of the terms of the mortgage; and

(b) the rival proposals over possession and sale.

UL16/0204
Page 5 of 6
8. In 2008 five solicitors, Sam, Tarquin, Ursula, Venus and Zachary
bought Tumbledown House as a place to stay in London during the
week as they worked too many hours each day at Fat Chance, a
solicitors firm, to commute from their homes in the country. Sam and
Tarquin each paid 40% of the purchase price and Ursula 20%, whilst
Venus and Zachary paid nothing. The house was conveyed to the five
of them as beneficial joint tenants.

In 2011 Sam went to work abroad. He sent a letter to Ursula, Tarquin,

Venus and Zachary saying that he wanted Tumbledown House to be
sold immediately so that he could “take his 40%”. The note was sent by
standard post to Tumbledown House and was opened by Ursula who
immediately threw it away without showing it to the others. On
emptying the bin Venus discovered the note and sent an email, which
she mistakenly sent to everyone at Fat Chance, telling them that she
was hurt not to have been consulted and had consequently decided to
sell her share of Tumbledown House with immediate effect. However a
few days later she discovered she was pregnant and decided not to go
through with her plans to leave.

In 2012 Ursula died in a car crash on the way to the christening of

Venus’s daughter. Her will left all of her property to Tarquin.

You are consulted by Sam, who has returned to the UK and wants to
resume living in Tumbledown House. However, Tarquin and Zachary
have told him that, since being made redundant, they have agreed to
sell Tumbledown House, although Venus is currently refusing to move
out.

Advise Sam:

(a) as to the effect of the above events on the legal estate and
equitable interests in Lofty Towers; and

(b) whether Tarquin and Zachary are entitled to exclude him and
Venus from living there and whether there is anything he can do
to prevent a sale.

END OF PAPER

UL16/0204
Page 6 of 6