Exam 2014, questions and answers PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Exam 2014, questions and answers PDF

Description

THIS PAPER IS NOT TO BE REMOVED FROM THE EXAMINATION HALLS

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON

LA3003

ZB

DIPLOMA IN THE COMMON LAW LLB ALL SCHEMES AND ROUTES

BSc DEGREES WITH LAW Land Law Wednesday 28 May 2014: 10.00 – 13.15

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 2014 UL14/0525 Page 1 of 7

1.

‘It is never easy for the law to strike the correct balance between simple, clear formality requirements and the desire to give effect to the intentions of the parties despite the absence of formalities. This much is evident in respect of the way proprietary estoppel may operate to create beneficial interests when no valid conveyance or land contract exists.’ Discuss.

2.

Rigsby owned a large house which was sub-divided into three separate flats: Flat 1, Flat 2, and Flat 3. Rigsby allowed his cousin, Alan, to move into Flat 1 after Alan’s marriage broke down and he had nowhere else to live. Alan signed a standard form ‘lease agreement’ that Rigsby found online. Rigsby deleted all the references in the document to ‘lease’ and replaced them with the word ‘licence’. He also added the following term: ‘Alan may occupy Flat 1 until he re-marries’. Two local students, Philip and Brenda, responded to Rigsby’s advertisement about occupying Flat 2. Rigsby required them to sign identical agreements allowing them to live in the flat for three years. The agreement included the following clauses: (a) Philip and Brenda must each pay £100 per week as an ‘occupation fee’, (b) Rigsby can decide to let a third person share the flat with Philip and Brenda, and (c) Rigsby is to retain a key. Rigsby assures Philip and Brenda that he will only need to use it if there is a water leak. In January 2014 Rigsby agrees to grant Jones a lease of Flat 3 for two years at an annual rent of £10,000, the rent to be paid in weekly instalments. Rigsby never grants the lease but Jones moves in and pays the rent once a month. Advise Rigsby as to the legal status of Alan, Philip, Brenda, and Jones.

UL14/0525 Page 2 of 7

3.

Adam was the registered owner of a large estate. There was a disused cottage on the estate that had been empty for some time. In 1990, Tim decided to renovate the cottage and make it his home. In 1993 he began refurbishing the property and occasionally stayed overnight when working late on the refurbishment. In 1995 he and Lisa, a keen gardener, moved in and began landscaping the gardens and mended the fences to keep their pet chickens from wandering off. Adam, who was attempting to secure finance to demolish the old cottage and build a sports complex, was aware that Tim and Lisa had moved in but raised no objection. Tim continued to live in the cottage until his death in 2000, leaving all his ‘worldly goods’ to Lisa. Last year, after failing to secure finance, Adam sold the registered title to Saul, who bought the property after noticing its magnificent gardens. Last week, on legal advice, Saul wrote to Lisa stating that he was content for her to remain at the property for the ‘time being’. (a)

Advise Lisa.

(b)

How, if at all, would your advice differ in EACH of the following ALTERNATIVE circumstances: (i)

Adam had expressly told Lisa that he did not mind her and her boyfriend using the cottage while he was seeking finance;

(ii)

Lisa threw Tim out last year after he refused to stop picking her prize flowers from the garden?

UL14/0525 Page 3 of 7

4.

Adele owned Greengates, title to which is registered. Greengates comprised a furniture shop and an adjoining house. In 2011, when Adele retired from running her business, she leased the furniture shop to Jessie, but retained ownership of the house. Earlier this year, when the lease came to an end, Jessie purchased the registered title of the furniture shop from Adele. Jessie now needs your advice about each of the following matters: (a)

Is Adele entitled to replace the underground drains in the garden of her house? Jessie is concerned that Adele’s proposed new drainage system will no longer serve Jessie’s shop.

(b)

Can Adele insist upon replacing the broken TV satellite dish that is hanging on the side wall of Jessie’s furniture shop? Adele insists that the shop wall is the only location from where it is possible to receive a reliable TV signal for her house. Jessie, however, wants Adele’s unsightly satellite dish permanently removed without being replaced.

(c)

Can Jessie continue to park her delivery van in the garage belonging to Adele’s house? Jessie began parking there several weeks after she leased the shop from Adele in 2011. Adele had suggested the idea because Jessie’s van had been stolen from the road. Adele is now claiming that she needs the garage to park her new car.

How, if at all, would your advice to Jessie on (a) and (b) be different if Adele had sold the registered title to the shop to Jessie in 2011 (rather than leased it to her)?

UL14/0525 Page 4 of 7

5.

Tom was the owner of a large estate with extensive grounds and a manor house called Mallet. Part of that estate, called Velvet Pastures, was used by Boystoy Ltd as a croquet ground and museum. In 2004, Tom gave Velvet Pastures to Boystoy to continue using it as a croquet ground and museum. The conveyance to Boystoy contained the following covenants by which Boystoy agreed: (i)

not to allow any structure on Velvet Pastures to fall into disrepair;

(ii)

to use Velvet Pastures only for croquet matches to be played between the hours of noon and 3 pm;

(iii)

to allow the current owner of Mallet to preside at any awards ceremony organised by Boystoy and their successors in title.

In 2005 Tom died and left Mallet to his son Harold, who was also a keen croquet player like his father. Last year Boystoy went into liquidation and Velvet Pastures was bought by Girlsthing Ltd, which has begun staging ladies football matches between the hours of 3 pm and 10 pm on Velvet Pastures. These matches regularly attract a large and often raucous crowd, quite unlike the sedate audience that previously attended the croquet tournaments. At their last board meeting, Girlsthing decided not to repair the museum, which had been damaged in a recent storm, and announced that the forthcoming awards ceremony would be a ‘ladies only’ event. Advise Harold.

UL14/0525 Page 5 of 7

6.

Elizabeth was the registered owner of Republican Acre, which she purchased with Phillip, who contributed 30% of the purchase price. Republican Acre comprises a house, in which they both live, and an adjoining field. Andrew has an express easement over Republican Acre, giving him access to the river from his neighbouring property, but he now no longer uses the easement since he recently became scared of water. Last year Elizabeth granted Andrew a ten-year option to purchase Republican Acre for £5,000,000. In January Elizabeth sold Republican Acre to Charles for £10,000,000 while Phillip was on a 3month ‘round the world’ cruise and Andrew was staying in their guest room because all the bathrooms were being renovated in his house. Charles is now the registered owner of Republican Acre. (a)

Advise Charles.

(b)

How, if at all, would your advice differ in EACH of the following ALTERNATIVE circumstances:

(c)

7.

(i)

No purchase monies arose on the disposition to Charles as the house was a gift from Elizabeth;

(ii)

Charles only paid £1 for Republican Acre?

Describe, briefly, how, if at all, your advice in (a) and (b) would differ if title to the land was unregistered and each transaction was carried out solely subject to the rules of unregistered title.

‘Although the mortgage is a creature of equity, it is time for equity to relinquish its hold and let statute regulate a device where the residential or commercial nature of the transaction necessarily requires a wholly different degree of legal oversight.’ Discuss.

UL14/0525 Page 6 of 7

8.

A few years ago Elizabeth, Mary and Sylvia bought a country cottage together. They were registered as joint tenants and declared in the TR1 form that they held title in trust for themselves as joint tenants. Elizabeth contributed 50% of the purchase price, Mary 40%, and Sylvia 10%. Initially they used the cottage for occasional weekends, but Sylvia soon found a job nearby and began living in the cottage. Her boyfriend Jim moved in with her, to help look after their new born baby. Last year Elizabeth was posted abroad and sold her beneficial interest in the cottage to Mary. In January Mary wrote to Sylvia offering to sell her interest in the cottage to Sylvia. Sylvia replied that she and Jim “would immediately start saving so that they can take her up on her offer”. In February Mary was made redundant and wrote to Sylvia saying she needed to sell her share now. Sylvia explained she would definitely be in a position to buy out Mary’s share in a couple of years but Mary has explained she cannot wait that long and is insisting, despite Sylvia’s objections, that the cottage be sold immediately. (a)

Advise Sylvia.

(b)

If the cottage was sold now, how would the proceeds of sale be divided?

(c)

How, if at all, would your advice in (a) differ in EACH of the following ALTERNATIVE circumstances: (i)

The property was conveyed into their joint names but no reference to any trust was made in the conveyance;

(ii)

Elizabeth, Mary and Sylvia were business partners and no reference to any trust was made in the conveyance;

(iii)

Mary was adjudged bankrupt;

(iv)

Sylvia died yesterday leaving her entire estate to Jim?

END OF PAPER

UL14/0525 Page 7 of 7

Examiners’ report 2014

Examiners’ report 2014 LA3003 Land law – Zone B Specific comments on questions Question 1 ‘It is never easy for the law to strike the correct balance between simple, clear formality requirements and the desire to give effect to the intentions of the parties despite the absence of formalities. This much is evident in respect of the way proprietary estoppel may operate to create beneficial interests when no valid conveyance or land contract exists.’ Discuss. General remarks There are a variety of legitimate ways of responding to the terms of this testing quotation. Essentially it is looking for a discussion of land law’s difficulty in balancing formality requirements with the aspiration of allowing the creation and operation of rights informally. Law cases, reports and other references the Examiners would expect you to use Cobbe v Yeomans, Thorner v Major, Kinane v Alimamy Mackie-Conteh, s.9 WA 1837, s.52, 53 LPA 1925, s.2 LP(MP)A 1989, s.116 LRA 2002. Common errors Candidates frequently failed to restrict the answer to the specific issues raised in the quotation. Such questions are not an invitation to write all you know about the general area of proprietary estoppel. A sizeable minority of candidates appeared to offer rote-learnt answers of dubious relevance that inevitably received a low mark as, being prepared in advance, they could not expect to address the specific issues raised in the question. A good answer to this question would… The question was not asking for a wide-ranging or abstract discussion and a good answer consequently tended to target the two specific issues mentioned in the second part of the quotation: proprietary estoppel’s role in creating beneficial interests; and also the formality requirements about land contracts and transfers of title. There is scope for answers to capitalise on a diverse range of judicial and academic views and a good candidate would offer a focused but wide-ranging discussion that captured this debate. Poor answers to this question… Unfortunately a sizeable number of candidates were indiscriminate in their selection of material and/or partially or wholly ignored the precise wording and ideas contained in the quotation.

1

LA3003 Land law

Question 2 Rigsby owned a large house which was sub-divided into three separate flats: Flat 1, Flat 2, and Flat 3. Rigsby allowed his cousin, Alan, to move into Flat 1 after Alan’s marriage broke down and he had nowhere else to live. Alan signed a standard form ‘lease agreement’ that Rigsby found online. Rigsby deleted all the references in the document to ‘lease’ and replaced them with the word ‘licence’. He also added the following term: ‘Alan may occupy Flat 1 until he re-marries’. Two local students, Philip and Brenda, responded to Rigsby’s advertisement about occupying Flat 2. Rigsby required them to sign identical agreements allowing them to live in the flat for three years. The agreement included the following clauses: (a) Philip and Brenda must each pay £100 per week as an ‘occupation fee’, (b) Rigsby can decide to let a third person share the flat with Philip and Brenda, and (c) Rigsby is to retain a key. Rigsby assures Philip and Brenda that he will only need to use it if there is a water leak. In January 2014 Rigsby agrees to grant Jones a lease of Flat 3 for two years at an annual rent of £10,000, the rent to be paid in weekly instalments. Rigsby never grants the lease but Jones moves in and pays the rent once a month. Advise Rigsby as to the legal status of Alan, Philip, Brenda, and Jones. General remarks Essentially, Rigsby needs advice on whether his arrangement with the occupiers of each flat takes the form of a lease or licence. Law cases, reports and other references the Examiners would expect you to use Street v Mountford, AG Securities v Vaughan, Antoniades v Villiers, Mikeover v Brady, Prudential v LRB, Berrisford v Mexfield, ss.52, 54, 149(6) LPA 1925, s.2 LP(MP)A 1989. Common errors A failure to address the specific issues under each of the leases via an essay that either did not consider each lease separately in turn, or did so repetitively, failing to appreciate the different facts under each of the scenarios. A good answer to this question would… be divided into three sections and address the following issues. Flat 1: Using Street v Mountford and related case law a key point of advice will be the effect of Rigsby altering the pro forma agreement in the determination of whether Alan does or does not enjoy exclusive possession. Even if Alan does enjoy exclusive possession, there is scope to argue that he occupies under a licence rather than a lease because Rigsby is his cousin and Rigsby agreed to Alan’s use of Flat 1 because of marital difficulties. The maximum duration of the stated term is clearly uncertain. But presumably it could be cured, under Berrisford v Mexfield, by an application of s.149(6) LPA 1925, making it a determinable 90 year lease; although the facts are silent as to whether Alan is paying rent, which would appear to be a requirement under s.149(6). Flat 2: The three year term is certain and the payment of an occupation fee could constitute rent. As Philip and Brenda are shared occupiers the advice to Rigsby will need to include a consideration of whether they have exclusive possession as joint tenants. It will consequently be useful to draw on case law that bears upon the provision of separate, yet arguably interdependent agreements, and the

2

Examiners’ report 2014

interpretation of the term about whether the rent obligation is compatible with unity of interest. The advice about exclusive possession might be expected to draw on precedent and illustrative case law and incorporate consideration of: the effect of Rigsby’s retention of the key to repair leaks; Rigsby’s labelling of the payment as an ‘occupation fee’; and the claim to be able to introduce a third person into the flat. This latter clause may be used as a hook to consider the applicability of the ideas of sham/pretence, and raise questions about the absence of factual details, such as the size/layout of the flat. Flat 3: Here consideration should be given to the possibility of a Walsh v Lonsdale equitable lease (assuming the agreement with Jones is written), a monthly periodic tenancy or a legal fixed term tenancy under s.54(2) LPA 1925. Poor answers to this question… would fail to appreciate that the Examiners wrote the problem in order to bring up a number of separate issues in this area and do not expect candidates to repeat the same advice in respect of each lease or to treat the three leases as if they were one composite lease. Question 3 Adam was the registered owner of a large estate. There was a disused cottage on the estate that had been empty for some time. In 1990, Tim decided to renovate the cottage and make it his home. In 1993 he began refurbishing the property and occasionally stayed overnight when working late on the refurbishment. In 1995 he and Lisa, a keen gardener, moved in and began landscaping the gardens and mended the fences to keep their pet chickens from wandering off. Adam, who was attempting to secure finance to demolish the old cottage and build a sports complex, was aware that Tim and Lisa had moved in but raised no objection. Tim continued to live in the cottage until his death in 2000, leaving all his ‘worldly goods’ to Lisa. Last year, after failing to secure finance, Adam sold the registered title to Saul, who bought the property after noticing its magnificent gardens. Last week, on legal advice, Saul wrote to Lisa stating that he was content for her to remain at the property for the ‘time being’. (a) Advise Lisa. (b) How, if at all, would your advice differ in EACH of the following ALTERNATIVE circumstances: (i) Adam had expressly told Lisa that he did not mind her and her boyfriend using the cottage while he was seeking finance; (ii) Lisa threw Tim out last year after he refused to stop picking her prize flowers from the garden? General remarks In this problem question we have, in addition to the usual categories of comment, also included specific notes on some of the more pertinent facts to give you an appreciation of how you might dissect a problem question during the 10/15 mins you are strongly recommended to spend planning your answer. 

Given that the cottage is disused what amount of physical activity will amount to factual possession? Is factual possession the same as exclusive possession? There are various cases to suggest it is (e.g. Powell v MacFarlane; Bucks CC v Moran, Marsden v Miller) but how then did the

3

LA3003 Land law

overstaying licensee succeed in the leading House of Lords case Pye v Graham when, by definition, Saul did not have exclusive possession? 

Clearly, events begin prior to 13 October 1991, but when does adverse possession begin? Presumably, intention existed from 1990, but when did factual possession arise?



It seems physical work does not begin for another two years after 1993 and, even then, there is doubt whether this amounts to factual possession given the infrequency of Tim’s overnight stays. Thus, it seems most unlikely that adverse possession began prior to 13 October 1991 and the applicable law is consequently to be found in Schedule 6, LRA 2002 rather than s.75 LRA 1925.



Does factual possession begin in 1995? Is the fencing significant or does the fact that it was to keep the chickens in rather than the world out make it less so? (Inglewood v Baker) Is there any sense in such a dichotomy or do fences invariabl...