King’s College London

This paper is part of an examination of the College counting towards

the award of a degree. Examinations are governed by the College
Regulations under the authority of the Academic Board.

LLB EXAMINATION
6FFLK002 LAW OF PROPERTY
Examination Period 2 (May 2019)
TIME ALLOWED: 2 HOURS

ANSWER ANY TWO OF THE FOLLOWING SIX QUESTIONS.

CLOSED BOOK EXAMINATION.

ANSWER EACH QUESTION ON A NEW PAGE OF YOUR ANSWER BOOK

AND WRITE ITS NUMBER IN THE SPACE PROVIDED.
PLEASE WRITE LEGIBLY.

DO NOT REMOVE THIS EXAM PAPER FROM THE EXAMINATION ROOM

TURN OVER WHEN INSTRUCTED
2019 © King’s College London
 6FFLK002

1. Lucy was the registered freehold owner of Murray Hill, she lived
there with her long-term companion, Ricky, and they both contributed
to the purchase price. Murray Hill is a farm which includes two fields
known as Green Field and Red Field.
Last year:
i) Lucy orally agreed that Ethel could rent Green Field for three years
for an annual rent of £1,000. Ethel has never gone into possession of
the field.
ii) Lucy granted Fred, by deed, the right to use a shortcut across Red
Field to access the road from his house. Fred has bought flagstones to
lay a path across the field.
iii) Lucy agreed, in writing, to give Sally the right to purchase Murray
Hill anytime over the next decade.
iv) Ricky went to live in Cuba for an indefinite period.

Last month Lucy sold Murray Hill to Maurice who is now the registered
owner. Maurice asked Ethel to leave Green Field and refused Fred
permission to cross Red Field. Sally now wants to exercise her option.
Ricky has now returned to claim what “is rightfully his”. Lucy has
disappeared with the proceeds of the sale. Maurice has asserted that
he is not bound by Sally’s option and owes Ricky nothing.
Advise Ethel, Fred, Sally and Ricky.

2. In 1998, Dickens, the registered proprietor of a shopping mall,

granted to Bronte a legal 25-year lease of shop premises. Bronte
covenanted:
i) to pay the rent for the entire duration of the lease as and when it
became due whether or not he remained tenant at the relevant time;
(ii) not to assign or sub-let without the landlord’s prior written
consent; and
(iii) not to cause any nuisance or annoyance to adjoining occupiers.

See Next Page

2
 6FFLK002

In turn, the lease contained a covenant by the landlord to keep the

shopping mall open at specified hours seven days a week, although it
expressly stated that Dickens’ liability under this covenant would
immediately cease in the event of his disposing of all his interest in the
property. The lease reserves to the landlord for the time being the
right to re-enter and terminate the tenancy if there are at least three
months’ arrears of rent, or in the event of any other breaches of
covenant being committed.
In 2005, Bronte assigned the lease, with Dickens’ written consent, to
Hardy. As a condition of consent being given, Hardy entered into a
direct covenant with Dickens that he would observe all the obligations
under the lease for the remainder of the original term, and Bronte
entered into an authorised guarantee agreement with Dickens. In 2008,
Hardy assigned the lease to Austen. Although Dickens never gave
formal consent to this assignment, he accepted that rent was now
being paid by Austen rather than Hardy and seemed to turn a blind eye
to Austen’s presence on the property. Austen granted a sublease of the
first-floor of the shop premises to Trollope, who opened an unlicensed
gambling business.
Two weeks ago, Dickens assigned the reversion in the lease to Eliot.
She has discovered that Austen has disappeared, the rent is some
twelve months in arrear, and the neighbours are upset as Trollope’s
premises attract numerous unsavoury characters at all hours who have
verbally abused them and threatened them with physical violence.
Eliot, a Christian, determines that she will no longer open the mall on
Sundays, and Dickens tells her that if that is the case, he will be
seeking a release from such liability as he may still have under the
covenants in the tenancy agreement. Eliot decides that she wants to
terminate the lease and recover possession of the property. Whether
or not she succeeds, she wants to recover the rent that is owing (she
does not mind from whom) and to close down Trollope’s gambling den.
Advise Eliot.

See Next Page

3
 6FFLK002

3. In 2000, Fancy Homes Ltd, a property developer, acquired a

registered freehold title to a derelict building in London, together with
a surrounding plot of parkland that entirely enclosed the building.
Fancy Homes Ltd converted the building into two flats, and built
tarmacked roads leading from the car park to the public highway and a
heated swimming pool.
In 2007, one flat was sold to Greta on terms that included the grant of
a ‘right of access over and use of all facilities connected with’ the
surrounding land retained by Fancy Homes Ltd. Greta made use of the
swimming pool, parked her car in the car park and accessed the flats
via the roads that cut across the parkland. Fancy Homes Ltd invoiced
Greta yearly for costs associated with the maintenance of these
facilities, which she duly paid.
In 2017, Fancy Homes Ltd sold the remaining flat to Henrietta. At this
stage, Fancy Homes Ltd was seeking legal advice about the use that
the freeholders were making of the parkland —they wished to charge
them for access to the facilities and were investigating their legal right
to do so. As a result, the conveyance in favour of Henrietta made no
reference at all to the grant of any right over the parkland. Since
Henrietta was a third-year law student who insisted on doing her own
conveyancing, the absence of any grant of rights over the park in the
conveyances went unnoticed.
In 2019, Greta sold her flat. Fancy Homes Ltd is refusing to allow her
purchaser, Imran, to make any use of the swimming pool, the roads
and the car park unless he pays a hefty yearly ‘licence fee.’
Meanwhile, Fancy Homes Ltd has told Henrietta that she needs to pay
an equivalent yearly ‘licence fee’ to use the pool, the roads and the
car park.
Advise Fancy Homes Ltd.

See Next Page

4
 6FFLK002

4. ‘[T]he right of the mortgagee to possession in the absence of some

contract has nothing to do with default on the part of the mortgagor.
The mortgagee may go into possession before the ink is dry on the
mortgage unless there is something in the contract, express or by
implication, whereby he has contracted himself out of that right. He
has the right because he has a legal term of years in the property or its
statutory equivalent.’
Discuss.

5. ‘The Land Registration Act 2002 marks a significant development. In

particular it strikes an appropriate balance between the needs of the
purchaser and those who are entitled to other interests in the land
being purchased.’
How far do you agree with this assessment of the provisions in
the Land Registration Act 2002?

6. ‘In National Provincial Bank v Ainsworth, the House of Lords allowed

a rigid and formalist commitment to the numerus clausus principle to
override the concern for social justice that motivated Lord Denning MR
in the Court of Appeal.’
Discuss, with reference to at least one other judicial decision
related to the numerus clausus principle.

Final Page