THIS PAPER IS NOT TO BE REMOVED FROM THE EXAMINATION HALLS UNIVERSITY OF LONDON LA3003 ZA

Transcription

1 THIS PAPER IS NOT TO BE REMOVED FROM THE EXAMINATION HALLS UNIVERSITY OF LONDON LA3003 ZA DIPLOMA IN THE COMMON LAW LLB ALL SCHEMES AND ROUTES BSc DEGREES WITH LAW Land Law Friday 31 May 2013: Candidates will have fifteen minutes during which they may read the paper and make rough notes ONLY in their answer books. They then have the remaining THREE HOURS 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. University of London 2013 Page 1 of 6

2 1. The Land Registration Act 2002 makes it much more difficult for an owner of land to lose title to a squatter. Most commentators assume this to be a good thing but only time will tell whether this actually represents an improvement on the previous system governing adverse possession of registered titles. 2. Alastair was the registered owner of Blackacre, he lived there with his long term companion, Nick, and they both contributed to the purchase price. Blackacre is a farm which includes two fields known as White Field and Gold Field. Last year: i) Alastair orally agreed that Stephen could rent White Field for three years for an annual rent of 1,000. ii) iii) iv) Alastair granted Dawn, by deed, the right to use a shortcut across Gold Field to access the road from her house. Alastair agreed, in writing, to give Roger the right to purchase Blackacre anytime over the next decade. Nick went to Tibet for an indefinite period. Last month Alastair sold Blackacre to Iggy who is now the registered owner of Blackacre. Iggy asked Stephen to leave White Field and refused Dawn permission to cross Gold Field. Roger now wants to exercise his option. Nick has now returned to claim what is rightfully his. Alastair has disappeared with the proceeds of the sale. Iggy has asserted that he is not bound by Roger s option and owes Nick nothing. Advise Stephen, Dawn, Roger and Nick. 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. Proprietary estoppel and constructive trusts play very similar roles in the informal acquisition of land law rights. Page 2 of 6

3 4. Although identifying the legal distinction between a lease and a licence is straight-forward, applying the distinction in practice has proved far more problematic. 5. Sarah was the owner of an area of land which she divided into three plots known as Plots 1, 2 and 3. Sarah sold Plots 1 and 2 and retained Plot 3. Sarah sold Plot 1 to Anne who covenanted with the current owners of Plots 2 and 3 to maintain Plot 1 as an ornamental garden and to build and maintain an ecological bio-sphere on the land for the preservation of rare plant species. It was further stated that the benefit of the covenant to build and maintain the bio-sphere is only to pass by express assignment. Anne is planning to demolish the bio-sphere and build a power station on Plot 1. Sarah sold Plot 2 to Fiona who covenanted with the current owners of Plot 1 and 3 to only use the land for residential purposes and build no more than one house on the plot. Fiona built a house on Plot 2 and sold it to Catriona without including an express assignment of the benefit of any covenants. Catriona plans to build two further houses and run her property development business from Plot 2. Discuss the private law rights and obligations that Sarah, Anne, Fiona and Catriona have in respect of the planned changes of use. Page 3 of 6

4 6. Andy was the registered owner and occupier of Umbridge Hall, comprising a house set in extensive grounds and a separate block of stables. In 2007, when Andy gave up his horse-riding business, he granted Barney a lease of the stables for a period of five years to run a horse-riding business. A few months after the start of the lease Andy allowed Barney to fix a sign advertising the stables to the side wall of the house next to the main road. Andy also told Barney that he was happy for horses to carry on using a track over the grounds of Umbridge Hall because it is the quickest route to the local common where they exercised. Barney was so grateful he let Andy keep his horse, Dasher, in an empty stable. In 2012 Andy renewed Barney s lease for a further five years. Andy has since sold the freehold of Umbridge Hall to Caroline. Caroline has asked Barney to remove the unsightly advertising sign from the wall of her house, and to stop using the track over the grounds of Umbridge Hall because the horses are too noisy. She has also insisted that when Andy sold Umbridge Hall she had been told that she would be entitled to use one of the stables to keep her own horse, Prancer. Page 4 of 6

5 7. Ed approached Dainty Dairies after his bank refused to lend him the money he needed to improve his farm buildings. Dainty Dairies agreed to lend Ed the money. Dainty Dairies agreed that the money was repayable over ten years and secured by way of a mortgage over the farm. Their mortgage deed contained the following terms: (i) (ii) (iii) Ed must sell half of the milk he produces each year to Dainty Dairies for the duration of the mortgage at the prevailing market price. Dainty Dairies has the right to buy three fields at the northern boundary of the farm if it decides to build a new depot in the locality. Ed cannot redeem the mortgage for the first nine years. In 2013 Ed s business ran into financial difficulty. When Ed missed two loan repayments, Dainty Dairies wrote to him indicating that Big Bottles plc had enquired about the possibility of buying Ed s farm. Ed is keen to be able to stay in possession to arrange his own sale because he believes this will maximise his chances of realising the best sale price, which is important to his plans to buy a smaller farm. Advise Ed about: the validity of the terms of the mortgage; the rival proposals over possession and sale. Page 5 of 6

6 8. In 2008 Sam, Tarquin, Ursula and Venus bought Lofty Towers as a place to live and run a small Bed and Breakfast business. Sam and Tarquin each paid 35% of the purchase price and Sam 20%, whilst Venus only put in 10% as she was going to undertake the running of the Bed and Breakfast. The house was conveyed to the four of them as beneficial joint tenants. In 2011 Sam went to work abroad. He sent an unsigned written note to Ursula and Tarquin saying that he wanted Lofty Towers to be sold immediately so that he could take his share. The note was sent by registered post to Lofty Towers and was opened by Ursula who immediately threw the note away without showing it to Tarquin. On emptying the bin Venus discovered the note and sent an SMS text message to the three remaining owners telling them that she was hurt not to have been consulted and had consequently decided to sell her share of Lofty Towers. In 2012 Ursula died. Her will left all of her property to Tarquin. You are consulted by Sam. He has returned to the UK and he wants to return to live in Lofty Towers. However, Tarquin and Venus have told him that they have agreed to sell Lofty Towers and he will have to find somewhere else to live. Advise Sam: as to the effect of the above events on the legal estate and equitable interests in Lofty Towers; whether Tarquin and Venus are entitled to exclude him from living there and whether there is anything he can do to prevent a sale. END OF PAPER Page 6 of 6