INSTRUCTIONS TO CANDIDATES
**Use the United Kingdom, Land Law cases, decision, and most relevant Law/ Legislation.
Answer THREE questions only. There are EIGHT questions on the paper.
Word Limit – 1500 words per question (+/-10%)
OSCOLA referencing (footnotes) and bibliographies are not required.
.
Your answers to the questions must be typed into a single word document. You must add your 6 digit student number to the header of this document. You must also include your 6 digit student number in BOTH the file name and submission title (when you upload it to Canvas).
Critically analyse the UK Land Registration Act’s main changes to the law of adverse possession. Do you consider that these have drawn the right balance between the interests of registered proprietors and squatters?
‘The governing maxim is ‘once a mortgage always a mortgage’ and equity jealously guards against any attempt by a mortgagee to acquire anything other than security for his loan by the imposition of certain restrictions’.
Critically analyse this statement with reference to relevant case law.
‘The register created by the Land Registration Act 2002 should never be a perfect mirror it needs to be cracked.’
Critically analyse this statement.
Sarah bought a remote country retreat called “La Dolce Vita” in 2005 from Alice, it comprised of a large barn that had been converted into living accommodation, adjoining stables which had been converted into business premises and two large fields in front of the property.
“La Dolce Vita” is accessed from a defined dirt track from the road. When Alice owned both properties she would regularly drive her quad bike across the fields rather than use the dirt track which she used when she drove her car.
Sarah had no use for the fields when she moved in so leased the fields to Alice to graze sheep on for 10 years and allowed her to use the stables to store the animal feed in until she needed the stables herself. Sarah also allowed Alice to use her dirt track to access the stables.
In 2015 Sarah renewed Alice’s lease of the fields for a further ten years.
It is now 2021 and Sarah and Alice have now fallen out and Sarah is refusing to let Alice store the feed in the stables as she wants to use the stables as a Bed and Breakfast. Sarah has also told Alice she can no longer use the dirt track.
Advise Sarah.
Andrew owns a large residential property, which has been sub-divided into a number of self-contained flats. At the very top of this property is ‘the attic flat’, which is a small one bed-roomed flat that comprises; a bedroom, a living room, with a kitchenette in the far corner and a bathroom with toilet facilities.
Andrew advertises ‘the attic flat’ for rent in the local newspaper. Francesca and her boyfriend, Jonny, answer the advertisement and look over the attic flat in the presence of Andrew.
The bedroom in the flat is unfurnished. Andrew asks the couple whether they would like single beds or a double bed if they should take the flat, offering to provide either. They choose a double bed and agree to take the flat at a rent of £250 per calendar month. Andrew replies that he will get a written agreement drawn up for them to sign and, on signing this agreement, and paying one month’s rent in advance, he will give them the keys to the flat.
When Francesca and Jonny arrive to sign the written agreement and pay the advance rent, Andrew presents them with two separate but identical agreements, one for each of them. Each agreement is described as a ‘licence’ and contains the following clauses:
that the attic flat is to be used in common with the landlord, Andrew, and such other persons as he may from time to time permit to use the flat, and
that the rent payable is £125 per calendar month for each occupant of the flat.
Desperate for accommodation, Francesca and Jonny each sign one of these two written agreements and they move into the attic flat together on the following day.
Three months later Francesca and Jonny receive a letter from Andrew requiring them to vacate the attic flat in 7 day’s time. They are quite upset about this. They have each paid the monthly rent on time. Andrew has never asked them to share the flat with anyone else; nor has he otherwise gained entry to the flat. Nevertheless, they have recently been told by one of their neighbours that Andrew now wants the flat for his new girlfriend, Esther.
Advise Francesca and Jonny.
In December 2010, Humphrey owned the fee simple absolute of a country estate called ‘Blossom Hills’. Humphrey decided to build a business park on his estate for local business and to sell certain plots of land on a freehold basis to investors. After acquiring planning permission for the business park, Humphrey was approached by Simon who indicated that he wished to purchase one of the plots. Humphrey sold the freehold of plot one to Simon subject to the following covenants which were made on behalf of himself and his successors in title:
not to use any part of plot one for residential purposes;
(ii) to use the plot solely for the purpose of constructing a warehouse together with associated facilities; and
(iii) not to keep any animal of any description in any premises which may be constructed on the plot.
Humphrey covenanted with Simon that he would not use any other part of the Blossom Hills Estate for business purposes.
In 2014, Simon constructed the required warehouse premises on plot number one and in August 2015 he sold the plot together with the warehouse to Eric.
In June 2016, Humphrey sold the Eastern Blossom Hills Estate to Rob.
Eric has recently had his house repossessed and has started staying at the warehouse with his dog, who he claims is a guard-dog. Rob has asked him to stop staying over-night at the warehouse, but Eric has refused.
As a result, Rob has taken the view that he is not bound by Humphrey’s undertaking not to use the rest of the Blossom Hill estate for business premises and has started to construct a go-kart track next to plot one on which he intends to offer ‘race days’ to the local business community at the rate of £15,000 per day.
Advise Rob and Eric.
Darren and Jo are hoping to buy a small semi-detached house in the suburbs of Liverpool. The house has the benefit of a quite large garden at the rear, which they think would be ideal for their proposed rabbit hotel (they have 3 rabbits of their own and have started allowing friends to board their rabbits and guinea pigs when they are away and in time hope to establish this as a business).
The house is old and is unregistered land. The sellers are the PRs of the deceased owner who had lived in the property for over 40 years until he died recently in a nursing home.
They have been investigating more about the property and have found out that there are a number of things affecting the property which they would like further advice on.
It appears there is a restrictive covenant on the property dated sometime in 1924, which prevents the keeping of animals. There is also another restrictive covenant on the property dated 1965 that prevents the property being used as a business or for a trade. These restrictive covenants have not been registered as land charges after further investigation but they have no understanding what the relevance of this is.
There is however a C1 land charge registered against the deceased owner’s name which has been shown to them.
Whilst speaking to the adjoining owners, they have found out that the deceased owner had entered into negotiations, before he died, with another couple who were supposedly buying the property and they had thought things had moved along quite significantly in the process to the extent that contracts had been exchanged.
Please can you advise Darren and Jo on the relevance of the above matters taking into account their wishes for the property?
In July 2010, three sisters, Emily, Charlotte and Anne, all of whom were of full age and capacity, pooled their respective resources and purchased a large country property known as ‘Wuthering Heights’ for the purpose of a home for themselves and their young orphaned sister, Bryony, who was then aged 7. The purchase price was £600,000. Emily, who had recently had a very welcome win on the national lottery, contributed £300,000. Charlotte and Anne contributed £150,000 each, largely drawn from the money that had been left to them by their late parents. Notwithstanding this inequality of contribution, the conveyance of the property to them provided that ‘Wuthering Heights’ should be held by them equally ‘as beneficial joint tenants’. The property was then registered at H.M. Land Registry in the joint names of all three adult sisters together with a declaration that the survivor could give a valid receipt for any capital money arising from its sale.
In March 2014, Charlotte entered into a registered civil partnership with Darcy and brought Darcy to live with her at the property. Following the happy event, Charlotte made a will in which she left all of her assets and belongings to Darcy.
In January 2015, Emily, having certain misgivings over the effect that Charlotte’s relationship with Darcy was having on Bryony, wrote to Charlotte and Anne suggesting that the property, ‘Wuthering Heights’, should be sold and that the proceeds of sale should be divided equally amongst the three of them. Charlotte vehemently objected to this proposal on behalf of herself and Bryony and, from that point on, the relationship between the sisters began to falter.
In December 2018, Anne, who had endured a string of bad luck betting on the horses, was declared bankrupt and fled the country in disgrace.
In March 2020, Emily died of a heart-attack which was largely brought on by receiving a letter from the Official Receiver who was seeking possession of the property so it might be sold to repay Anne’s debts.
Advise Charlotte as to who owns the property and in what proportions, and as to whether she, Bryony and Darcy can oppose the Official Receiver’s recent demand for its sale.
Would your answer be any different if Emily had not written to Charlotte and Anne in January 2015? If so, explain why.
