39

2014
PROPERTY LAW

2014 (ZONE A)
1. A few months ago Jake decided to purchase Whiteacre from Godfrey.
Whiteacre comprised a house, a garage and large field. Jake, who is taking an internet course on law,
decided to do the conveyancing work himself and moved into Whiteacre after title was registered in
his name.
In the last few days Jake has noticed Larry, a local farmer, moving sheep into the large field. When
confronted, Larry explained that in January 2013 Godfrey granted him a seven-year lease of the field.
On the same day Jake saw Mo, his neighbour, letting herself into the garage and removing a lawnmower.
When Jake asked her what she was doing, Mo told him that she bought her house from Godfrey
several years previously. Mo is not sure but she thinks she may have a written document authorising
her to use the garage to store her lawnmower. She also explained that she stored her lawnmower in
the garage at Whiteacre in exactly the same place that Godfrey had kept his own lawnmower.
Yesterday, Jake was shocked when Kitty let herself into the house. Kitty, Godfrey’s former partner,
claimed that Whiteacre was still her home. She told Jake that she had paid part of the purchase price
when she and Godfrey acquired Whiteacre. Kitty had been away for the last three months looking after

PROPERTY LAW / TORT LAW / FAMILY LAW / COMMERCIAL LAW / EU LAW

her infirm mother who died last week. Before purchasing Whiteacre, Jake asked Godfrey about the
women’s clothing he had seen in the large walk-in closet leading off the master bedroom in Whiteacre.
Godfrey said that he was storing them for his former partner.
(a) Advise Jake about what rights, if any, Larry, Mo, and Kitty have to Whiteacre.
(b) Briefly indicate how, if at all, your advice would differ if Jake’s position was governed solely by
principles of unregistered land.

2. ‘Ample scope for improvement and simplification.’

How far do you agree with this assessment of (a) the essential legal characteristics to create a lease;
and (b) the legal principles relating to forfeiture for breach of a leasehold covenant other than one for
the payment of rent?

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:
PYQ

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

(ii) Lisa threw Tim out last year after he refused to stop picking her prize flowers from the
garden?
 40
4. ‘Whilst formalities play an important role in the law of property, they can also be a source of injustice.
Proprietary estoppel is therefore an important corrective even though it undermines the very rule it is
seeking to improve.’
Discuss.

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.

6. Last year Max, a property developer, leased the penthouse suite in his block of flats for a year to
Gnash, a famous heavy metal singer. A few months later, the other residents complained about the
large number of fans who gathered outside the block of flats each day in the hope of seeing Gnash. So
Max agreed that Gnash could park his helicopter on the helipad that Max had previously installed on
the roof of the penthouse for his use when he occupied the penthouse. Max also allowed Gnash to use
the private lift that connected the penthouse to the helipad. In return, the other residents agreed that
Max could use the outside walls of the block of flats to advertise any rooms he had available to let in
the block of flats and his other properties across London.
Max recently renewed Gnash’s lease for another year before selling the freehold in the block of flats
to Sox, a concert promoter. Sox wants to use the helipad himself, and as there is only room for one
helicopter, he asked Gnash to stop using it. When Gnash refused, Sox disabled the lift so that it would
no longer serve Gnash’s penthouse. As the block of flats is fully occupied, and he owns no other
properties, he has also changed the advertising sign to promote the concerts he promotes from his
office located within the building.
Advise Gnash.
© Brickfields Asia College

How, if at all, would your advice differ if Gnash had begun using the helipad from the outset, having
assumed its use was included when he leased the flat and Max had likewise installed the advertising
sign at that time?

7. ‘Although the mortgagee retains the right to possess the mortgaged property, it is better to describe
that right as a remedy.’
Discuss.
 41
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

PROPERTY LAW
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?

2014
(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;

PROPERTY LAW / TORT LAW / FAMILY LAW / COMMERCIAL LAW / EU LAW

(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?

PYQ
UOL
 42

2014 (ZONE B)

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.

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
© Brickfields Asia College

garden?

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. SJessie 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.
 43
(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.

PROPERTY LAW
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)?

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:

2014
(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

PROPERTY LAW / TORT LAW / FAMILY LAW / COMMERCIAL LAW / EU LAW

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.

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 3- month ‘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:
(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?
PYQ

(c) 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.
UOL
 44
7. ‘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.

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?
© Brickfields Asia College