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 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

UL18/0376
Page 1 of 6
1. Dirk and Clea are a married couple. They have recently arrived in
London looking for a flat to rent. They noticed an advertisement for a flat
which read: ‘Huge one bedroom flat at attractive rent. Beautiful
decoration and great kitchen. Would suit couple’.

The landlord is Ed. The couple were given an agreement to sign by Ed.
The agreement included the following terms:

(a) The occupiers shall pay a licence fee for occupation of the
property. The licence fee shall be £1,000 per month.
(b) The landlord shall be able to occupy the property himself
at any time, or to introduce any third person to the property
on payment of an equal share of the rent.
(c) This agreement creates a mere licence and not a lease.
The landlord only agrees to make the premises available
on that basis.

The property comprises one bedroom with a double bed which is suitable
for two people to occupy. There is a kitchen; a small bathroom; and a
separate living room with a sofa capable of accommodating one person
to sleep. Ed has left a suitcase containing some of his clothes in a
cupboard in the hallway.

Dirk met the previous occupants, Joe and Kim, in a coffee shop to
discuss the property. Joe told Dirk that Ed had once arrived at the
property at 8.00pm and demanded to be allowed to sleep on the sofa in
the living room. Joe had refused to allow Ed to do so. Ed had left
immediately.

Advise Dirk and Clea as to the nature of their rights if they were to sign
this agreement.

UL18/0376
Page 2 of 6
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. ‘The doctrine of proprietary estoppel should be organised around a

general principle of “unconscionability” and not simply around the
technical limitations of “detrimental reliance”. In this way, the courts will
be emboldened to create a wide range of possible remedies for litigants.
Such a large amount of land law is dedicated to rigid rules that
proprietary estoppel is necessary to act as a safety valve so that fair
outcomes can be reached in individual cases.’

Discuss.

UL18/0376
Page 3 of 6
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 Land Registration Act 2002 created a new scheme for the
administration of land transactions which promised to be fit for the 21 st
century. It is therefore deeply regrettable that so many of the provisions
of that legislation have not been brought into effect or that they have
generated difficult litigation. Consequently, it would be better to return to
the earlier arrangements, or even to return to the unregistered land
system.’

Discuss.

UL18/0376
Page 4 of 6
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.

UL18/0376
Page 5 of 6
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.

8. ‘The law on adverse possession was fairer before the Land Registration
Act 2002. The previous approach made it possible for unused land to
pass to new owners who would actually use it. The modern approach is
too restrictive.’

Discuss.

END OF PAPER

UL18/0376
Page 6 of 6