THIS PAPER IS NOT TO BE REMOVED FROM THE EXAMINATION HALLS

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON LA3003 ZA

LLB
DIPLOMA IN THE COMMON LAW
BSc DEGREES WITH LAW

Property law

Friday 18 May 2018: 10.00 – 13.15

Candidates will have THREE HOURS AND FIFTEEN MINUTES in which to

answer the questions.

Candidates must answer FOUR of the following EIGHT questions.

Candidates must 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 Core Statutes on Property law (Palgrave
Macmillan).

© University of London 2018

UL18/0375
Page 1 of 7
1. Tina and Yves saw an advertisement for a flat in London on the internet.
It read:

‘Cheap flat for rent. Would suit couple or two individuals sharing.
References required.’

The landlord was Susan. Tina and Yves met with Susan to view the flat.
The flat was comprised of the following rooms: one bedroom with a
double bed; one bathroom with a bath and shower; one kitchen; one
utility room with enough room for a washing machine; and one living
room.

Tina asked Susan: ‘How could two people possibly share this flat if they
weren’t a couple?’

Susan answered: ‘The sofa folds out into a bed, or we could probably do
something with the utility room like putting a mattress in there.’

Susan gave them a document to look at. It was titled ‘Licence

Agreement’ and contained the following clauses:

(1) The landlord has the right to introduce any third person she
chooses to occupy the property with the occupants.
(2) The occupants will be separately responsible for half of the
licence fee of £800 per calendar month, but the landlord
reserves the right to recover the balance from the other
occupant.
(3) The occupants shall be required to leave the property
every day between 10.30am and 12.00pm.

Susan has also offered to provide a cleaner for the property if Yves and
Tina paid an extra £80 per month.

Nothing has been signed yet.

Advise Yves and Tina as to their rights if they were to sign the
agreement, and advise them generally.

UL18/0375
Page 2 of 7
2. Xavier and Zena met at law school in London. They have been an
unmarried couple for ten years. Both of them work as solicitors in the
same legal firm. Zena has been more successful in her career. She was
recently appointed a partner in the firm and now receives an income of
£250,000 per annum. Xavier is paid £80,000 and is not a partner.

They bought the freehold interest in a house in suburban London in 2010

for £440,000. The legal title in the property was registered in their joint
names. The deposit was funded by a gift of £40,000 from Xavier’s
parents “towards your first proper home together”. The remaining
£400,000 was provided by way of a mortgage which was taken out in the
couple’s joint names. The mortgage repayments were made out of a joint
bank account.

Xavier had known the vendor of the house from their days on the
university football team. He negotiated a reduction in the purchase price
of the house of £20,000 on the basis that he would provide the vendor
with some free legal advice.

The couple had a discussion about their expenses in 2010. As a result,

Xavier paid for the lease on their car, the broadband bill and for both of
their mobile phones throughout their relationship. Zena paid for all utility
bills and for their holidays. They did not discuss their property rights in
the home.

In 2014, Zena became pregnant. She took a break from work, including
one year unpaid, so that she could spend time with their child. Their child
required constant medical care. Zena used her savings to pay for that
medical care. Xavier was the only person earning an income during that
year. Therefore, Xavier took sole responsibility for the mortgage during
that period of time. Paying the mortgage used up all of Xavier’s spare
income.

Zena has discovered that Xavier has been unfaithful to her.

Consequently, Zena now wants to leave Xavier.

Advise Zena as to her rights in the house.

3. ‘While the doctrine of proprietary estoppel achieves just outcomes in

individual cases, the basis for the doctrine itself is far from clear.
Because different courts have apparently decided different cases on
different bases it is difficult for individual litigants to know their rights.’

Discuss.

UL18/0375
Page 3 of 7
4. Jennifer took out a mortgage over her house with Bean Machine plc in
July 2016. The loan was used to fund an expansion of Jennifer’s coffee
shop business. The mortgage was for £50,000. Bean Machine plc was
a supplier of coffee beans and other equipment to coffee shops. Jennifer
had been unable to acquire a mortgage from ordinary banks and
therefore was only able to borrow from Bean Machine. The interest rate
which Jennifer was required to pay was 0.25% lower than it would
otherwise have been because the mortgage contract contained two
clauses:

(1) Jennifer shall be required to acquire all of her coffee from

Bean Machine.
(2) Jennifer shall be required to pay the fixed monthly
repayment amount specified in this contract for forty years
whether or not the mortgage capital is repaid.

Bean Machine is now forcing Jennifer to pay double the price for her
coffee compared to the amount she had been paying in 2016. Bean
Machine claims that this is because of movements in commodity markets
in recent years. Jennifer has noticed that the market value of coffee has
not increased nearly as much as the prices Bean Machine is charging.

Jennifer has failed to meet her mortgage repayments for two months.
Bean Machine wishes to take possession of the property as a result.
Jennifer will produce evidence that she will be able to generate sufficient
profits from a new business venture by opening an Italian restaurant in
the premises. However, that restaurant business will take one year until
it is in profit. Jennifer claims that she will be likely to be able to make
repayment of the mortgage when the business is in profit.

Advise Jennifer.

5. ‘The law governing unregistered land was greatly preferable to the law
governing registered land. The law which governs registered land is too
rigid and does not ensure a fair outcome in individual cases, particularly
where fraud and unconscionable activity have occurred.’

Discuss.

UL18/0375
Page 4 of 7
6. Stan and Fran lived in adjoining semi-detached houses. Stan lives at
number 8 and Fran lives at number 6. Both houses were designed as
part of an architecture competition by two progressive architects. Neil
designed number 8 and Grace designed number 6. Neil and Grace had
both lived in the houses which they had designed before Neil sold his
house to Stan and Grace sold her house to Fran. The houses are in a
remote part of the countryside. Neil and Grace agreed on some
provisions which should be included in identical terms in the
conveyances of both properties.

Both houses benefited from a new form of wireless internet access.

However, this wireless internet would not function correctly if either party
aligned a television satellite incorrectly. Therefore, there were covenants
in identical terms in both conveyances in the following terms: ‘The
proprietor shall not align a television satellite receiver in a northerly
direction’.

Both houses shared a roof which was designed to have plants growing
on it. This was intended to be environmentally friendly and also to help
to heat the houses. There were covenants in identical terms in both
conveyances in the following terms: ‘The proprietor shall be obliged to
maintain the plants on their roof-space for the benefit of their neighbour’s
property and to prevent bindweed from growing on their roof-space so
that it does not ruin the plants on the neighbouring roof.’

Both houses shared a novel system for collecting rainwater and heating
their houses. There were covenants in identical terms in both
conveyances in the following terms: ‘The proprietor shall be obliged to
keep the ducts and pipes on their roof clear of all obstructions so as to
ensure a free flow of water to their property and to the neighbouring
property.’

Stan has aligned his satellite dish in a northerly direction so that he can
get a better reception for the football on television. Fran cannot now
watch television programmes over the internet because the wireless
signal is interrupted.

Stan refuses to tend to the plants on his roof space. He maintains that it
would cost him too much money to hire a gardener to the do the work
because he knows nothing about plants. Recently, Fran’s gardener has
noticed that there is bindweed creeping onto her roof space from Stan’s
property.

Fran refuses to keep the ducts on her roof space clear of leaves and
other debris because she says it is too difficult for her to climb a ladder.
She also refuses to spend money on someone to do the work for her.
Fran has refused to allow Stan to cross onto her roof space so that he
can do the work. The water to Stan’s property is often blocked in winter.

Advise the parties.

UL18/0375
Page 5 of 7
7. Red Farm was a parcel of land which had previously formed part of
Green Farm. It had been the subject of a grant between the
predecessors in title to Ellen, the current proprietor of Red Farm and
Sarah, the current proprietor of Green Farm.

Ellen kept cattle on Red Farm but had insufficient pasture to graze them.
She had acquired twenty extra cows in January 2016 which had required
the erection of larger cowsheds. This was the reason for Ellen having
too little grazing land left for her cows.

Since January 2016, Ellen had herded her cows twice per week to Blue
Field which she leased from another farmer. To reach Blue Field, Ellen
had to cross neighbouring Green Farm. Ellen used a track at the edge
of Green Farm which was not used for any particular agricultural
purpose. There was no other route to reach Blue Field.

In 2016, Ellen bought some 19th century carts. She had no room to store
them and so she left a cart on the track across Green Farm where she
walked her cattle. Ellen sent Sarah a text which read: ‘I will have to leave
the cart where it is because its wheels are broken. Sorry.’

Sarah owned hundreds of free range chickens which she kept on Green
Farm. Sarah believed that Ellen’s activities disturbed the chickens and
stopped them from laying eggs properly. Therefore, Sarah erected a
gate across the track which Ellen used to drive her cattle.

At the same time, Sarah wanted to advertise her farm shop to passing
traffic. As a result, she had a very large advertising hoarding created.
She fixed the hoarding to a tree on her own land and also to a large tree
on Red Farm. Ellen has threatened to cut down the tree on Red Farm so
that the advertising hoarding cannot stand.

Sarah has offered to remove the gate if Ellen permits her to maintain the
advertising hoarding.

Both parties are claiming that they have easements over the
neighbouring land. Advise the parties as to their respective rights.

UL18/0375
Page 6 of 7
8. ‘The law on adverse possession was supposedly limited by the Land
Registration Act 2002. The current situation, however, allows a person
in occupation of another’s land without permission to acquire greater
rights than was permitted before 2002. This is undesirable and adverse
possession should be entirely removed from English land law.’

Discuss.

END OF PAPER

UL18/0375
Page 7 of 7