Appendix D

Specimen Examination Paper

289
Land Law

GDL Land Law

Specimen Examination

Time allowed: 3 hours

Candidates must attempt three questions from this seven question paper

FIT TO SIT POLICY IMPORTANT

Under the above policy, any student who attends an assessment is deemed to
be fit to sit that assessment. This is important. It means that you may not (for
example) later submit a concession application relating to impaired performance in that
assessment because of illness, or any other mitigating factor which affected you at the start of
the assessment. If you are not fit to sit, you should not attempt the assessment.

290
 Appendices

Instructions to candidates
Student Reference Number
Write your student reference number (SRN) on the front cover of every answer booklet /
continuation sheet you use. You should NOT write your name anywhere on the answer
booklet / continuation sheet.

Questions
Answer THREE of the following SEVEN questions.
Write in blue or black ink in the answer booklet provided. Start each answer on a new page.
Answers written elsewhere, such as on rough paper, will not be marked.

Time
You have 3 hours to complete the examination.
DO NOT WRITE ON YOUR ROUGH PAPER, QUESTION PAPER OR INSIDE YOUR
ANSWER BOOKLET BEFORE THE EXAMINATION HAS STARTED.
STOP WRITING IMMEDIATELY UPON BEING INSTRUCTED TO DO SO BY THE
INVIGILATOR AT THE END OF THE EXAMINATION.
A FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH EITHER OF THESE INSTRUCTIONS MAY
CONSTITUTE CHEATING.

Permitted materials
The only materials permitted are:
1. Your GDL Statute Book;
2. English Language Dictionary;
3. English/Foreign Language Dictionary.
The dictionaries must be in book, not electronic form; law dictionaries and Latin dictionaries
are not permitted.
THERE MUST BE NO ANNOTATION WITHIN THE PERMITTED MATERIALS.
Note: It is your own responsibility to make sure that you have all the
permitted materials. Spare materials ARE NOT available. You ARE NOT
permitted to share materials with another student.

Assessment information
All questions carry equal marks.
DO NOT TURN OVER THE PAGE UNTIL INSTRUCTED TO DO SO

291
Land Law

Question 1
Claire, Phil, Alex, Jay and Gloria were all actors in a successful television series (the series).
They decided to buy a house near to the television studios. In March 2014, they purchased
the registered freehold of a large house called Maison Mitchell for 3,000,000. Claire and
Phil, a long-term couple contributed 500,000 each. Jay and his girlfriend, Gloria,
contributed 1,000,000 each. Alex did not contribute towards the purchase price as she was
only 16 and had no savings. The transfer deed conveyed the property to Claire, Phil, Alex,
Jay and Gloria as beneficial joint tenants.
In July 2014, Claire decided to have plastic surgery to remain looking young. In order to fund
the cost of the surgery, Claire borrowed money from her wealthy co-star, Luke, and secured
the loan against her interest in Maison Mitchell.
In March 2015, Jay discovered that Gloria was having an affair. Claire, Phil and Alex were
fiercely loyal to Jay and furious with Gloria for betraying him. They all ended up having a big
argument. Gloria stormed out of Maison Mitchell and said she could no longer live with the
others. The next day Claire, Phil, Alex and Jay agreed with Gloria in principle to purchase
Glorias interest in Maison Mitchell. Solicitors were instructed to negotiate a deal. The
negotiations were at an advanced stage when Phil changed his mind. He persuaded the
others to put any final agreement on hold until the start of the next season of the series.
In April 2015, Alex quit the series to pursue other opportunities. She tore off a page from their
latest script and wrote a note. It was addressed to Claire, Phil and Jay and stated, I need
some space. I am considering that I would like to sell my interest in Maison Mitchell, but lets
decide what to do once Ive settled into a new place and got my head straight. She pinned
the note to the fridge in Maison Mitchell before leaving. Claire, Phil and Jay saw the note
when they returned home that evening.
At the end of May 2015, Phil was declared bankrupt. Phils trustee in bankruptcy now wishes
to enforce a sale of Maison Mitchell. Jay is opposed to the sale as he is about to celebrate his
th
70 birthday and wants to live out the rest of his days at Maison Mitchell. Meanwhile, Claires
plastic surgery went wrong leaving her physically scarred. As a result, she had a breakdown
and is unable to leave the house. Phil has taken a break from work to care for Claire and
believes that the trustee in bankruptcy may be infringing both his and Claires human rights.
Advise Claire, Phil, Alex, Jay and Gloria.

292
 Appendices

Question 2
In 1988, Layla bought the registered freehold of a property which is used as a workshop. In
1990, she granted a 30 year legal lease of the property to Teresa, who runs a dressmaking
and tailoring business from the workshop. The lease includes the following covenants:
1. The tenant will use the property for the purposes of a dressmaking and tailoring
business only;
2. The tenant will make and supply a tailored suit to the landlord every two years
throughout the term of the lease;
3. The tenant will not assign the lease without the written consent of the landlord;
4. The landlord will keep the property fully insured.
In 2002, Layla sold the freehold of the property to Rowena.
In 2003, Teresa assigned the lease to Ayshea, with Rowenas written consent. Aysheas
business was not as successful as she had hoped so, in 2004, she sublet the whole property to
Sybil for 10 years. The sublease contained a covenant by the subtenant to observe and
perform the covenants in the headlease.
Sybil has realised that she cannot make enough money simply by dressmaking, so she has
started using the property for sewing and knitting lessons, craft and cookery demonstrations
and yoga classes. Rowena is unhappy about this as it competes with her own business. She
is also unhappy that she has not received a new suit since Teresa assigned the lease in 2003.
Sybil is anxious as she understands that Rowena has not insured the property at all since she
bought the freehold reversion.
Advise the parties.
What difference would it make to your answer if the lease had been granted
in 2000?
Note: Candidates are not required to discuss forfeiture.

293
Land Law

Question 3
Meera is the registered freehold owner of two adjoining properties, Dale House and Greens
House. Both properties comprise a large room, a kitchen and a bathroom downstairs, with
two large rooms upstairs. Dale House is used as a residence and Greens House is used as a
vegetarian restaurant.
Meera runs the local Post Office. Two months ago, she advertised Dale House to her
employees as being available to let. Three of her employees, Pat, Sara and Julian, were
looking for a place to live. Pat and Sara, a couple, went to view Dale House and thought that
it would be suitable for them and Julian to live in. Meera made Pat and Sara sign separate but
identical licence deeds there and then to secure Dale House. Julian arrived later that
afternoon and signed an identical document.
The licence deeds were granted for three years and include the following terms:
1. To pay a monthly licence fee of 400 in advance;
2. To allow the licensor to enter Dale House at any time to carry out inspections and
repairs; and
3. To allow the licensor to move two additional people into Dale House at any time.
Greens House is occupied by Ted who runs his vegetarian restaurant there. Last year, he
entered into a seven year lease by deed with Meera.
The lease includes the following terms:
1. In the event of any breach of covenant, the landlord may forfeit the lease;
2. To pay a monthly rent of 600 in advance; and
3. Not to display on the outside of the property any advertising sign without the landlords
prior approval of the colours and design of any such sign.
Ted has recently changed the design of the advertising sign without consulting Meera. Meera
has noticed the new advertising sign and she is not happy. She is considering forfeiting the
lease.
Meeras friend, Ajay, wishes to buy Dale House and Greens House from Meera and to
redevelop them into one large property, for which he needs vacant possession.
Advise Meera.

294
 Appendices

Question 4
Thierry was the registered freehold owner of two neighbouring houses. He used one of the
houses, called the Maison, as a centre for teaching foreign languages to local adults. The
other house, called the Casa, was empty.
In June 2007, Thierry sold the freehold of the Casa to Bob. The transfer deed contained the
following covenants:
1. Not to use the Casa for the teaching of foreign languages and to use it as a private
residence only;
2. To pay 50% of the costs of the electricity supply to the annexe in the back garden of the
Maison, which the owners of the Maison and the Casa are entitled to use;
3. To submit building plans to the owner of the Maison before building any extension to
the Casa.
The covenants were expressed to be made for the benefit of the seller, his heirs and assigns,
but only in so far as expressly assigned to them.
In May 2009, Bob decided to retire to Spain and he sold the Casa to Pedro. Thierry grew
bored with teaching so he sold the Maison to Luigi in March 2010. A clause in the transfer
deed expressly assigned the benefit of covenants 1 and 2 to Luigi but there was no mention of
covenant 3.
In October 2010, Pedro opened a Spanish school in the Casa. His Spanish lessons proved so
popular that he decided to build an extension to the Casa which was completed in March
2011. He did not submit any building plans to Luigi.
Pedro had been using the annexe, which contains a home cinema system, to show Spanish
films to his students. In March 2011, he bought a television and a DVD player to put in the
extension to the Casa, so he stopped contributing towards the electricity supply to the annexe
as he no longer uses it.
Luigi is very unhappy about all this, particularly now that all of his foreign language students
have enrolled on Spanish courses at the Casa.
Advise Luigi.

295
Land Law

Question 5
Rebecca completed the purchase of the registered freehold of Landy Lodge from Paul last
week. She also purchased the registered freehold of the field adjoining Landy Lodge from Paul
at the same time. Rebecca paid the purchase monies to Paul as sole legal proprietor.
Steph arrived home at Landy Lodge the day after completion, having returned from a six
month internship overseas with a major law firm. Steph explained that she is Pauls sister.
Steph showed Rebecca an old postcard on which Paul had written that he bought Landy
Lodge for both him and Steph, and half belongs to Steph. Paul had signed the postcard.
Rebecca now recalls that she noticed high-heeled shoes in the second bedroom when she
viewed Landy Lodge prior to purchasing it, but she did not think to ask about them.
Three days ago, Daisy claimed that Paul should not have sold Landy Lodge and the adjoining
field to Rebecca without first consulting her, as she has a right of first refusal over both
freeholds. She showed Rebecca a typed document dated 1 November 2011, giving Daisy a
right of first refusal lasting five years to purchase Landy Lodge. The document was signed by
Paul and Daisy. Daisy also produced an envelope bearing the same date, stating that the right
of first refusal granted in the typed document covers both Landy Lodge and the adjoining field.
The envelope was signed by Paul only.
Two days ago, the neighbouring freeholder, Angela, claimed that Paul gave her an eight year
lease of a small workshop in the grounds of Landy Lodge.
Will, a friend of Rebecca, found a silver tiara in the grounds of Landy Lodge while he was out
walking yesterday. He wants to keep it to give to his mother for her birthday, but Rebecca
would like to have it for her summer ball.
Advise Rebecca.
How would your answer differ if Landy Lodge and the adjoining field had
been unregistered land?

296
 Appendices

Question 6
On 1 April 2006, Ted bought the 50 year registered leasehold of a shop on Brennan Street in
West London. To assist with the purchase, Teds wealthy friend Dougal lent Ted 150,000,
secured on the lease of the shop. The mortgage deed was drafted by a local solicitor and
was duly executed and registered.
The following terms were contained in the mortgage deed:
1. The earliest date the mortgage may be redeemed is 1 April 2046;
2. The rate of interest shall be recalculated on 1 January each year and shall comprise the
Bank of England base rate plus the average percentage increase in property prices on
Brennan Street from the previous year.
Over the last few years, Brennan Street has become a highly sought-after place to live, and
property prices have risen dramatically. Teds shop has become extremely successful during
that time, but Ted is alarmed by the mortgages current interest rate of 16%. He now has
sufficient funds to pay off the loan and would like to do so as soon as possible.
Jack and his wife Mary jointly own the registered freehold of Craggy House, their home,
which is also on Brennan Street. Jack lost his job as an MP at the last election. Shortly after
the election, in July 2010, Jack obtained a loan from Executive Mortgages Ltd (EML), using
Craggy House as security. He intended to use the money to fund a new consultancy business.
The registered legal repayment mortgage was signed by both Jack and Mary. It was the first
time they had mortgaged the property. Jack was very optimistic about his new venture, but
Mary had some reservations and felt she was being rushed into agreeing the loan.
Jacks consultancy business has not yet made any money because he has been involved in an
ongoing parliamentary expenses investigation. Jack and Mary have now missed their
mortgage payments for the last four months. Jack is confident that once the investigation is
over, his consultancy business will become profitable. EML is considering its position.
Advise the parties.

297
Land Law

Question 7

UPPER FIELDS
FARM BARN
HOUSE
+++++++ T +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++ R +++++++++++++++++++++ORCHARD+++++++
+++++++ A +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++ C +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
K LOWER FIELDS

Gordon owned the registered freehold of Pittingstall Farm, a large farm with two sections. On
the Lower Fields, there is an orchard. On the Upper Fields, there is a farmhouse, and Gordon
also kept sheep there.
In 2007, Gordon granted a 10 year lease of the Lower Fields to Kamal. The agreement was
set out in a document labelled deed, dated and signed by Gordon and Kamal, but it was not
witnessed. The agreement expressly reserved the right for Gordon to drive his sheep across a
track through the Lower Fields, as this was the easiest route to take them to stables for
veterinary checks.
Kamal spends all daylight hours tending his trees in the Lower Fields. Owing to a lack of
facilities in the Lower Fields, Gordon said that Kamal could use the lavatory in the farmhouse.
In the past, Gordon himself had walked up to the farmhouse to use the lavatory when working
in the orchard on the Lower Fields.
There is a large barn on the Upper Fields that Gordon used for parking farm machinery.
Gordon said that Kamal could keep his tractor in this barn as Gordon had previously done so
himself.
In 2009, Gordon sold the freehold of Pittingstall Farm to Prunella. She does not like Kamal
coming in to use the lavatory, as she says he is always in the lavatory when she wants to use it
and he leaves muddy footprints. She no longer wants him coming into the farmhouse. Prunella
has also told Kamal that she will no longer allow him to keep his tractor in the barn on the
Upper Fields.
Prunella has been keeping cows instead of sheep on the Upper Fields, as this is much more
lucrative. Prunella drives her cows across the Lower Fields to the stables. The cows cause
significant damage to the track, as they churn up much more earth than sheep do. Kamal is
unhappy about this.
Some of Prunellas cows have developed gastric problems as they have been eating sour
apples from the orchard. Kamal has complained that he has seen some of the cows stretching
over the fence to reach the apples on his trees.
Advise the parties.
Note: Candidates are not required to discuss tortious liability.

298