Property law quick quiz answers

page 1

Quick quiz answers

Chapter 2

Question 1
(a) is incorrect as the transfer of legal title in unregistered land requires a deed which
is the instrument of transfer of title not just the handing over the title deeds to the
intended new owner. (c) is incorrect as the document of transfer must comply with s.1
LP(MP)A and here it only complies with s.2 LP(MP)A and thus only effects an equitable
transfer (because as a specifically enforceable contract to convey a legal estate equity
looks as done what ought to be done). Therefore (b) is correct.

Question 2
(a) is incorrect as Anne cannot enter her trust interest under s.2 LCA. (b) is incorrect
as if Paul only paid the purchase money to Dell, as a single trustee this has not
overreached Anne’s interest, as required by ss.2 and 27 LPA 1925 (although see State
Bank of India v Sood) so it is (c) which is correct as failure to overreach means that the
doctrine of notice will apply.

Question 3
(a) is incorrect as the entry is not against the land as the land is not registered. (b) is
incorrect as entry on the correct register will protect her interest against a purchaser
so (c) is correct as the entry is against Paul’s name under Land Charges Act 1972.

Question 4
(a) is correct, under ss.2 and 27 LPA 1925 her beneficial interest in the home will
be overreached if purchase money is paid to two (or more) trustees. (b) having
overreached her interest the doctrine of notice is irrelevant and (c) is incorrect as a
trust interest cannot be entered on the Land Charges Register.

Question 5
(a) is partly correct as she does have an estate contract which is indeed a property
interest. However, as an interest that is protectable by land charge registration both
the issue of her bona fides and notice are irrelevant. In (b) you can see that the answer
is more accurate and comprehensive. Often students leave answers half right. To be
correct ensure that you explain all the law that is relevant. So (b) is correct although
(c) is also correct but only details Paul’s personal liability. Anne does have a contract
with Paul and a remedy in contract but the key issue for property lawyers is whether
she can enforce her right as a property right rather than a personal right (breach of
contract).

Chapter 3

Question 1
(a) is incorrect as the transfer of legal title in registered land requires a deed which is
the instrument of transfer of title, not just the handing over of the title deeds to the
intended new owner. (c) is incorrect as the document of transfer must comply with s.1
LP(MP)A and here it only complies with s.2 LP(MP)A and thus only effects an equitable
transfer (because as a specifically enforceable contract to convey a legal estate equity
looks as done what ought to be done). We are therefore left to choose between (b)
and (d). Although (b) would be enough to effect a legal disposition in unregistered
land the same is not true in registered land where express dispositions only become
page 2 University of London International Programmes

legal once registered. Thus (b) again effects only an equitable disposition in contrast
to (d) which effects a legal disposition as the transfer has been completed by the
addition of entry on the register.

Question 2
(a) is in part correct as Anne can enter her interest as a restriction but this notifies
Paul of his need to overreach. (b) is incorrect as if Paul only paid the purchase money
to Dell, as a single trustee this has not overreached Anne’s interest, as required by ss.2
and 27 LPA 1925 (although see State Bank of India v Sood) so it is (c) which is correct as
failure to overreach means that Anne’s interest (the trust) when coupled with actual
occupation is an overriding interest under Schedule 3 para.2 LRA 2002.

Question 3
(a) is correct as the entry under s.32 LRA 2002 is effective as notice to a purchaser
s.29 LRA 2002. (b) is incorrect as entry on the correct register will protect her interest
against a purchaser. (c) is incorrect as a restrictive covenant is not an interest which is
capable of being protected by actual occupation.

Question 4
(a) is correct, under ss.2 and 27 LPA 1925 her beneficial interest in the home will be
overreached if purchase money is paid to two (or more) trustees. (b) is incorrect,
having overreached her interest cannot be overriding under Schedule 3 para.2 so this
issue is irrelevant and (c) is incorrect as a trust interest will not bind a purchaser who
has overreached regardless of notice.

Question 5
(a) is incorrect as notice is irrelevant if there has been no entry on the register which is
done by entering a notice (please note the equitable doctrine of notice as referred to
initially in (a) has nothing to with the ‘notice’ by which she might have protected her
interest – the language is very confusing at times!) So (b) is correct, although (c) is also
correct but only details Paul’s personal liability. She does have a contract with Paul and
a remedy in contract but the key issue for property lawyers is whether she can enforce
her right as a property right rather than a personal right (breach of contract).

Chapter 4

Question 1
(a) is correct in changing the focus of a settlement from a trust which presumed a sale
to one which presumed occupation. Therefore (b) and (c) are both incorrect.

Question 2
Paul as life tenant cannot have an interest in the remainder as this is settled on Anne,
so (a) is incorrect. While (b) has elements of truth it is incomplete so (c) offers the
closest explanation of Pauls’ interest.

Question 3
Both (a) and (b) are functions of the trustee while (c) is only correct if the life tenant is
a minor. So (c) is not the role of a trustee.

Question 4
(c) is correct in that the interest of a beneficiary is no longer regarded as an interest
in personal property. Overreaching is retained so (a) is incorrect and it is s.1 TLATA that
sets out what a trust of land means so (b) is incorrect.
Property law quick quiz answers page 3

Question 5
(a) this is correct and is linked to later chapters of the subject guide. (b) is incorrect as
the beneficiaries’ right to occupy is set out in ss.12, 13 TLATA and (c) is incorrect as the
duty to sell is an important change to the law. The duty to sell has been removed (ss.4,
5 TLATA) and there is now a trust of land rather than trust for sale.

Chapter 5

Question 1
An implied trust may arise when the requirements of an express trust in land,
evidenced in signed writing of the settlor, under s.53(1)(b) LPA 1925, have not been
complied with, so (a) is incorrect. Section 1 TLATA established that a trust of land is
created when there are two or more owners of land so that is not correct for the
implied trust as it can be for either express or implied. Therefore (c) is incorrect. You
can use s.53(2) LPA 1925 to rely on the creation of implied trusts as this section states
that the formalities of s.53(1) LPA 1925 do not apply to the creation or operation of
implied trusts, so (b) is correct.

Question 2
Since 1925, land can only be owned as a joint tenant, to make the transfer and
management of land easier. This was set out in s.34 LPA, so (c) is correct. Section 36 LPA
1925 specifies that a joint tenancy at law cannot be severed, so (a) is incorrect, as is (b)
as it is a statutory rule not common law.

Question 3
In commercial property there is a presumption that unequal contributions mean that
the legal owners hold it beneficial on resulting trust as tenants in common, but in
residential property there is a counter presumption that it is held as joint tenancy. In
Stack v Dowden the majority presumed that ‘equity follows the law’ and that it was for
the party claiming a tenancy in common to prove that. So (b) is correct (although note
the strong dissent in the case). If the property was commercial, then the courts would
begin with the presumption of a resulting trust and it would be for the party claiming
that there had been a joint tenancy, which when severed is severed in equal share,
to prove this. So (a) is only correct in commercial contexts. A constructive trust is not
presumed but can be proved on evidence, so (c) is incorrect.

Question 4
You cannot sever a joint tenancy at law (s.36(2) LPA 1925) so while (b) has some truth it
would need to stipulate that it is only the legal title that cannot be severed. Therefore
(b) is incorrect, as is (c) as, again, the answer is incomplete but has elements of truth. A
joint tenancy must have the four unities and severance does end this, but there needs
to be more depth for this to be correct. However, (b) has specified the authorities for
severance, so is more correct. You may argue that this is not in itself in enough depth.

Question 5
Under s.15 TLATA both (b) and (c) are considerations the courts take into account
when an application under s.14 TLATA has been made. So (a) is incorrect as the trustee
is not a consideration: if the trustee is also the beneficiary, then it is their position as
beneficiary that matters, not their function as trustee.
page 4 University of London International Programmes

Chapter 6

Question 1
While Lord Templeman outlined these as the elements of a valid lease it is clear from
both statute (s.205 LPA) and case law that rent is not essential, so (c) is the correct
answer. It can also be suggested from the case of Berrisford v Mexfield that an uncertain
term may also be remedied, but this is arguable, so (b) is still essential and (a) is one of
the key determinates of a lease.

Question 2
The lease of uncertain term may be resolved under Berrisford v Mexfield. This is an
unusual circumstance based on the nature of the agreement in that case, so is unlikely
to save most leases in this situation. (c) is not correct on our limited facts. (a) is
incorrect as it will not automatically fail. (b) is correct, and is one of the reasons that
rent is an element of a lease. Although the uncertain term of the lease is a problem
it may become a periodic lease based on the rental calculation. So if the rent is
calculated on an annual basis (regardless of how often it is paid) then this is an annual
periodic lease.

Question 3
The first two answers are perhaps too emphatic, it would not be clear on our facts.
Always remember that limited facts will make it difficult to give a clear answer. A
periodic lease can be a valid legal lease; it would not need writing under the exception
in s.54 LPA. This also requires that the rent is the best rent, and that the lessee has
taken possession. So (c) is the best answer.

Question 4
Both (a) and (c) do not need to be substantively registered under s.27 LRA 2002. To be
legal the only lease that would need to be substantively registered (registered in its
own right) would be (b) as this is a lease over seven years. A lease of three years or less
cannot be registered at all (s.33 LRA 2002) but a lease over three years and up to seven
years can be protected by a notice on the register (s.32 LRA 2002).

Question 5
There are elements of truth in all answers, the best answer would include all three
points. The contract must be specifically enforceable, which was clear from Walsh v
Lonsdale so (b) and (c) are too superficial in their answer. It, however, must satisfy s.2
LP(MP)A so (a) is the correct answer.

Chapter 7

Question 1
Although all answers contain elements that are found in the dictum of Lord
Kingsdown in Ramsden v Dyson it is (c) that has all the elements which are accepted as
the elements necessary for an estoppel to arise.

Question 2
The answer to (a) is incorrect. Although promissory estoppel can only be used as a
shield and not as a sword, proprietary estoppel can form the basis of a claim. This is
clear from the facts of the cases. The statement in (b) is incorrect. More recently the
courts have not required the reliance to involve expenditure and the burden is not on
the promisee. There is a rebuttable presumption that there is reliance once there has
Property law quick quiz answers page 5

been a representation. The burden falls to the promisor to rebut that presumption
(Greasley v Cooke) so statement (c) is true.

Question 3
The answer to (a) is incorrect. Although this has advantage as it prevents the
contradictions between requiring formalities in land law and then allowing oral
promises or actions to form a basis for granting property rights, the cases prove that
the estoppel can create proprietary remedies. Although the answer in (b) is attractive
and has merits, the approach taken in Jennings v Rice, as explained by Lord Walker, has
been the approach taken by the courts. So statement (c) is true.

Question 4
Statement (a) is incorrect. In the case of Cobbe v Yeomans Row the courts did place
importance on the fact that there had been no agreement over the land in a formal
contract, as required by s.2 LP(MP)A, but this was based very clearly on the active
agreement not to reduce the agreement to writing, in a business context. On those
facts there was no detriment that made it unconscionable to deny the promisee an
interest. Statement (c) is incorrect as the promise can be by conduct or failing to
rectify what the ‘promisor’ knows to be an unfounded belief by the promisee that an
interest in the land will be created. It is statement (b) that is correct: on the evidence it
was clear that David believed that he would inherit the farm. The belief was based on
inferences by Peter’s word and conduct. This was also despite the fact that the exact
extent of the land that would be inherited was uncertain.

Question 5
Statements (b) and (c) are both correct as is clear from s.116 LRA 2002. So it is
statement (a) that is not true.

Chapter 8

Question 1
Both (b) and (c) are requirements under Re Ellenborough but it does not need both
parties to be freeholders. While for the acquisition of an easement by prescription
there must be two freeholders it is not part of the criteria in Re Ellenborough.

Question 2
(a) is correct as this is an express grant of a legal easement, and (c) is correct in
creating an easement using Wheeldon v Burrows. However, the method in (b), although
it looks like the creation of an easement using s.62 LPA, cannot be applied to two
freehold estates. It requires diversity of occupation not ownership.

Question 3
Although there has been a lease of the dominant tenement, the two tenements were
under separate ownership not just occupation so (a) is incorrect. (c) is also incorrect
as there has been a break in use for over a year, and the use must be 20 years directly
preceding any claim she makes to the court to protect her easement. (b) is correct as
use for a continuous 20-year period will create an easement. It does not have to be
directly before the action.

Question 4
(c) is incorrect as they are different in their nature. (b) is partially correct as a profit
can be owned by more than one person but that is not the main distinction. It is (a)
page 6 University of London International Programmes

that is the fundamental difference between an easement, which must be a right which
benefits the land, and a profit which can exist in gross, not requiring land that benefits
but can be personal benefit.

Question 5
Schedule 1, for first registration, and Schedule 3, for subsequent registration, are
relevant but the relevant paragraph is para.3. So (b) and (c) are correct. It is Schedule 3
para.2 that will not identify if an easement can be overriding. This paragraph specifies
that an interest in land can be protected by actual occupation. You cannot occupy an
easement as it is a right over another’s land.

Chapter 9

Question 1
Statement (a) is incorrect as a party who is not party to the original covenant may be
able to enforce the benefit of a covenant under both s.56 LPA and s.1 Contract (Rights
of Third Parties) Act 1999. So statements (b) and (c) are both correct.

Question 2
Statement (c) is correct. Although the methods of express annexation, and implied
under s.78 LPA, are more relevant to the rules in equity, where the burden can also pass
they can also be applied to the passing of the benefit at common law. Statement (a)
is incorrect because it ignores the methods of express and implied annexation under
s.78 LPA. Statement (b) is incorrect because at common law the burden of a covenant
will not directly pass (Rhone v Stephens).

Question 3
Statement (b) is correct as the benefit of a covenant reflects the methods of common
law, although, arguably, more flexibly applied and in addition under a scheme of
development. Statement (a) is incorrect as equity has more methods of passing the
benefit. Statement (c) is incorrect as there is still a requirement that the covenant
must touch and concern the land. So it is not personal in nature.

Question 4
Statements (b) and (c) are incorrect as following Rhone v Stephens the burden of a
covenant does not pass at common law. Statement (a) is correct in that it cannot
directly pass at common law. There are methods to affect the burden passing. A chain
of indemnity can require a successor to indemnify the original party against any claim
for breach of covenant. Also under the principle of Halsall v Brizell a person who takes
the benefit of a promise must also undertake the corresponding obligation. This
principle is largely linked to the corresponding rights which exist in the form of an
easement. So if a person has the right to use a drive that passes over their neighbour’s
land and they have entered into a covenant to contribute to the upkeep of the drive, if
the person wishes to take the benefit of using the drive they must accept the burden
of contribution.

Question 5
Both statements (a) and (b) are correct but it is statement (a) that incorporates
the requirements more fully, as it refers us to the principal case of Tulk v Moxhay.
Statement (b) merely has one element of the case. There are four elements: it must
be negative (as stated in (b)); it must benefit the land; it must have been intended to
run with the land; and the successor must have notice (see Chapter 2) of the covenant.
Statement (c) is incorrect as there is no need for a corresponding benefit in equity.
Property law quick quiz answers page 7

Chapter 10

Question 1
In registered land the provisions of ss.85 and 86 LPA are still relevant but a legal
mortgage now in registered land can only take effect in law once substantively
registered under s.27 LRA and entered on the Charges Register under s.32 LRA 2002,
so (a) is incorrect as it is not a complete answer. (c) is incorrect as although a deed is
required, which would need to comply with s.1 LP(MP)A, only (b) has the fuller answer.

Question 2
The relevant date for deciding what interests bind a purchaser (which includes a
mortgagee – s.205 LPA) is the date of registration. Under s.105 LPA the order of priority
is that ABC will be bound by all entries on the register for Greenacre at the time their
mortgage is registered. So they will have to repay CBS mortgage first before the costs
and then their own mortgage debt. So (a) is correct. Although (b) correctly refers to
s.105 LPA on the order of repayment it states the law incorrectly, as does (c).

Question 3
For an order for sale to arise under s.101 LPA the mortgage must be made by deed.
It is not clear that this has happened, so if there is no deed then s.101 LPA power of
sale cannot arise, so (a) is incorrect. Also as the right cannot arise it cannot become
exercisable under s.103 LPA, which means that (b) is incorrect. Anyone with an interest
in the house can apply under s.14 ToLATA so (c) is the only one we can be sure would
apply, as even an equitable mortgage will grant such a right.

Question 4
A court will strike out clauses which are ‘morally reprehensible’ but they will not strike
them out merely for being ‘unreasonable’: Multiservice Bookbinding Co Ltd v Marden.
Factors for consideration listed in answers (a) and (c) are among the considerations
mentioned in Jones v Morgan (among others). So (b) is not a consideration of the
courts.

Question 5
Answer (c) is incorrect as they cannot sell the mortgaged land to themselves. There is
authority for all other statements in Cuckmere Brick Co Ltd v Mutual Finance Ltd.

Chapter 11

Question 1
The answer in (a) is correct as it is the limitation period that prevents an action by the
paper owner; (b) is incorrect as this Act does not regulate the issue; and (c) is incorrect
as that only relates to claims in registered land after 2003.

Question 2
The answer in (b) is correct as this is the two-part test required to establish that the
possession is adverse. The answer in (a) is incorrect as there is no need to use the
land in a manner that is contrary to the intended use by the paper owner, and (c) is
incorrect as it is not the intention to own but the intention to possess that is relevant.

Question 3
The correct answer is (b) as for both registered and unregistered land before 2003 the
limitation period was 12 years. The answer in (a) is incorrect, as this is the period under
page 8 University of London International Programmes

registered land since 2003 that needs to pass before a claim by the possessor can be
made for entry as the owner on the register, and (c) is incorrect, as this is the period
which the registrar will require before entry as full owner on the register as this proves
a good root of title.

Question 4
The answer in (a) is correct: the paper owner’s title is automatically extinguished. The
answer in (b) is incorrect for unregistered land, as it is in registered land that the paper
owner will hold the land on trust at the end of 12 years, and (c) is incorrect as their title
is extinguished and the paper owner does not need to register their interest, although
it may be advisable to protect in this manner.

Question 5
The answer in (b) is incorrect as in registered land the paper owner’s title was
never automatically extinguished. The answer in (c) is also incorrect as it makes no
distinction between the dates of possession, and it is also incorrect to say that the
paper owner retains title. Before 2003 they would have retained legal title but held
this on trust for the adverse possessor, who may register their interest. The answer in
(a) is correct as it makes the crucial point about the changes made under LRA 2002,
which came into effect in October 2003.