THIS PAPER IS NOT TO BE REMOVED FROM THE EXAMINATION HALLS

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON LA3003 ZB

LLB
DIPLOMA IN THE COMMON LAW
BSc DEGREES WITH LAW

Property law

Friday 2 June 2017: 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 Blackstone's Statutes on Property Law (OUP).

© University of London 2017

UL17/0571
Page 1 of 6
1. ‘The law on adverse possession has always been depicted as a
scandalous interference with the rights of legitimate property owners. As
a result, the changes effected in the Land Registration Act 2002 provided
a timely reform to the law. However, these alterations to the law on
adverse possession have robbed English land law of a vital tool for
achieving the proper use of land that otherwise is unused or abandoned.’

Discuss.

2. Geoffrey was an elderly man who tended to be very forgetful. Geoffrey

acquired the freehold title to Blackacre, which consisted of a detached
house and two small fields – known as Red field and Blue field.
Blackacre was registered land. Blackacre was secured by a mortgage to
Whale Bank.

Geoffrey granted a lease over Red field to Harriet. Harriet used Red
field to exercise the dogs she housed as part of her dog kennel
business. The lease was for ten years and was created by deed.

Geoffrey agreed to permit Laura to use Blue field for her horses. Laura
competed professionally in horse races across rural land. She wanted
to be able to cross Blue field so that she could pass from her own land
to the main bridleway. This agreement was put into writing and Laura
pays £100 per month for the right of access.

Geoffrey agreed in the pub one evening that he would grant to Peter a
right to purchase Blackacre for its market value if Geoffrey ever
decided to sell it. This agreement was evidenced by an exchange of
text messages between the two men on the following day.

Geoffrey has now been admitted to hospital after a nervous

breakdown. His brother, Tom, seeks your advice about the rights which
Harriet, Laura and Peter may have over Blackacre.

3. ‘The principal strength of the doctrine of proprietary estoppel is its

flexibility. The range of remedies which are available in a proprietary
estoppel action contrast with the limitations of constructive trusts.
Constructive trusts are too uncertain to be of use to litigants in land law
disputes.’

Discuss.

UL17/0571
Page 2 of 6
4. Karen and John are an unmarried couple who are looking for their first
home together. They have found a flat advertised on the internet.
Spyros is the landlord. The advertisement for the flat read: ‘Flat
available. Would suit young couple. Cheap rent.’

Karen and John are eager to go into occupation of the flat as soon as
possible. They have been given a document which they are required to
sign by Spyros which contains the following terms:

‘1. This agreement shall not constitute a lease. The rights of

the occupants are as licensees only.

2. The occupants shall be required to vacate the premises

every Thursday morning between the hours of 10.00am
and 11.00am so that the property can be cleaned.

3. The landlord reserves the right to go into occupation of

the property at any time.’

The premises consist of one bedroom, one bathroom and one large
room with a combined kitchen and living room. The bedroom contains
one double bed (i.e. large enough for two people to occupy at once).
The sofa in the living room can be opened out into a bed for two
people.

When Karen asked Spyros about clause 3, he said: ‘Don’t worry about
that. I don’t intend to come and spend the night with you.’

Advise Karen and John as to the nature of their rights if they entered
into this agreement.

UL17/0571
Page 3 of 6
5. George owns the freehold title to No.1 Thresher Cottages. Angie owns
the freehold title to No.2 Thresher Cottages. The two cottages are
semi-detached: that means that they share a roof and there is an
internal wall between the two cottages which runs from the foundations
to the roof.

Both cottages were built in 1982. The land is registered land. There are
identical freehold covenants over both cottages which read as follows:

1. The freeholder shall maintain a hedge of conifers between the

gardens of the two cottages.

2. The freeholder shall refrain from causing any harm to any

neighbouring property or neighbour.

3. The freeholder shall ensure that no noxious substance is

allowed to pass into the sewerage and waste water
system.

George bought his cottage in 2001 from the original owner, Steve.
Angie bought her cottage in 2012 from the original owner, Teri.

George refuses to pay for the maintenance of a hedge between the

properties and wishes to install a wooden fence instead. Angie prefers
a high conifer hedge. Angie insists on a hedge so that she can
sunbathe in the garden without being seen.

George does not see the need to keep his house clean. He stores
open containers of pet food in his attic. As a consequence, he has a
large number of mice living in his roof space. Because the internal
wall in the roof space has not been properly maintained, the mice can
escape into Angie’s property without difficulty. Angie has a phobia
about mice and claims to be suffering from depression as a result of
the number of mice which have appeared in her home. Angie can
prove that the mice originated in George’s house.

When Angie cooks, she empties cooking fat and other refuse down the
sink. Over the months, this has built into a large ball of congealed fat
and other substances which have blocked the sewer. The blockage is
under George’s cottage. Angie refuses to stop disposing of cooking fat
in this way and she refuses to pay for any remedial works on the
shared sewer.

Advise Angie and George as to their rights.

UL17/0571
Page 4 of 6
6. Tariq owns the freehold title to a detached house, Greenacre, in a rural
part of Devon, England. Greenacre is registered land. The house is
surrounded by one acre of gardens and grassland. Tariq bought
Greenacre from Dominic in 2010. Greenacre had formerly been a part
of the land known as Brook Farm.

Dominic owns the freehold title to the farm, Brook Farm, which borders
Greenacre. Dominic inherited Brook Farm from his father. Brook Farm
is registered land.

Dominic keeps cattle on his land. Once a week since 2010, Dominic
has led his cows from Brook Farm across grassland at the edge of
Greenacre to another field which he also owns on the far side of the
main road. Dominic claims that thirty years previously his father used to
walk his cattle along an identified path across the land that is now
Greenacre. He is unable to prove this. Dominic also claims that ‘it is
essential to be able to walk my cattle to the other field because my
main field cannot sustain grazing for my cattle all year long’.

Tariq claims that the entirety of Greenacre is needed for his future
business plans, and therefore that he cannot have cows walking across
it. He intends to construct small buildings for tourists to occupy for
holidays.

Tariq also wants to attach a large sign advertising this tourist

accommodation on the wall of a barn on Brook Farm. There had
previously been a sign attached to that barn before Tariq had acquired
Greenacre. The sign had advertised the farm shop which had formerly
been operated by Dominic’s father on Brook Farm. That sign was still
attached to the barn when Tariq went into occupation of Greenacre.
Dominic took that sign down six months ago.

Tariq has planted a thick line of prickly holly bushes across the path
that Dominic uses to move his cattle to the alternative field and he has
placed a padlock on the gate leading across Greenacre from Brook
Farm.

Advise Tariq and Dominic as to their rights.

UL17/0571
Page 5 of 6
7. Joanne took out a mortgage from Frank so that she could acquire the
freehold title to business premises in London. Joanne operated a
coffee shop business from those premises. The land is registered land.

Frank inserted the following terms into the mortgage contract:

‘(a) Joanne shall be obliged to acquire all of her coffee

supplies from Frank at the prevailing market price for
coffee in London.

(b) Joanne shall be obliged to pay the monthly interest

repayment amount for twenty years after the end of the
mortgage term.

(c) Joanne shall be obliged to negotiate with Frank for the

purchase of cake ingredients for any cakes which she
manufactures for sale on the premises. Joanne shall
have the right to buy her cake ingredients elsewhere if
Frank’s price is too high.’

Joanne and Frank signed the mortgage contract in 2015. Frank

acquired the rights of a mortgagee over the premises.

Subsequently, Joanne’s business has not been a success. To remain

solvent, Joanne needs to acquire her coffee and cake ingredients at a
lower price than Frank is charging her. Joanne has not paid her
mortgage payments for three months. At present, she feels she may
not be able to meet her repayment obligations in the foreseeable
future. Frank has told Joanne that he will not terminate the mortgage
contract until the value of commercial property increases.

Advise Joanne.

8. ‘The concepts of joint tenancy and tenancy in common are

convoluted and obscure. By contrast, the Trusts of Land and
Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 has introduced important new ways
of protecting the rights of beneficiaries to land which reach beyond the
limits of the case law.’

Discuss.

END OF PAPER

UL17/0571
Page 6 of 6