land law essay plans

Notes, cases, and materials on land law

Topic notes.

Past Papers

Back to Subjects | Back to Law

Definition and rights

Inroduction

Rights in unregistered land

Land charges registration

Statutory overreaching

Introduction

The registered regime

Effect on Disponees

Overriding interests

The 'restriction'

Lease/Licence distinction

Content requirements

Joint tenancy and tenancy in common

Shared equitable ownership

Purchase money resulting trusts

Common intention constructive trusts

Proprietary estoppel

Enforcing the covenant

Passing the burden of the covenant

Passing the benefit of the covenant

Enforcing the burden of positive covenants

Discharge and modification of restrictive covenants

Forms the subject matter of a grant

Express and Implied Easements

The effect of Easements on disponees

General cases

Past Papers & Questions

1. “The minimum equity principle requires that, in fashioning a remedy to give effect to proprietary estoppel, the court must go no further than is necessary to prevent detriment.” (Robertson, ‘The Reliance Basis of Proprietary Estoppel Remedies’ [2008] Conv 295). Critically discuss.

2. “The remedies available to the mortgagee are too extensive and do not accord with the economic realities of the twenty-first century. Immediate reform is required.” Critically discuss.

3. “The rules determining the existence of a ‘common intention’ constructive trust of the home, and the rules determining the shares held by the beneficiaries of such a constructive trust, are too uncertain”. Critically discuss.

4. “The new regime for adverse possession in registered land implemented through the LRA 2002 adopted a clear moral view on ‘advertent squatters’, as the prospect that the urban squatter could acquire the title to land automatically, on the expiry of the limitation period, was deemed to be inherently unfair.” (Neil Cobb and Lorna Fox, ‘Living Outside the System? The (im)morality of Urban Squatting after the Land Registration Act 2002’, Legal Studies 27(2) 2007). Discuss

5. ‘Critically evaluate whether Schedule 3 of the Land Registration Act 2002 does ensure, and whether it should ensure, that rights binding a disponee are readily discoverable by them.

6. If Parliament were to review the contents of Schedule 3 of the Land Registration Act 2002, by what principles should it be guided? If your proposed principles were adopted, what are the main changes (if any) that would need to be made to those contents?

7. Has the Supreme Court’s decision in Jones v. Kernott [2011] regarding the informal acquisition of beneficial interests in family homes left that area of the law in a satisfactory condition?

Abigail is the registered proprietor of the freehold title to Oxford House, a large plot of land with a 4-bedroom house and a 2-bedroom cottage in its grounds. The cottage has a bathroom and kitchen, but lacks a sitting room. Until now she has lived in the house and rented the cottage on short-term holiday lets, but as her employer is relocating her to New York indefinitely she decides to rent both the house and cottage on a longer-term basis.

On 30th August 2016 Abigail enters into a written agreement with Betty, signed by both parties, giving Betty the right to exclusive possession of the house in return for market rent of £1500 per calendar month. The agreement provides for each party to terminate the agreement by providing the other with one month’s notice to quit. Betty moves in on the same day.

Also on 30th August 2016 Abigail confers on Connor and Darren, two students at the local university, the right to occupy the cottage from 1st September 2016 until 1st July 2017 (the date on which they complete their studies). Connor and Darren tell Abigail how glad they are to have found her cottage, having searched for a suitable 2-bedroom property for a few months. Abigail enters into an agreement with Connor, signed by both Abigail and Connor, and another in identical terms with Darren, signed by both Abigail and Darren. In recognition of the fact that Connor and Darren are students, Abigail rents them the property at 60% of its market value. Clause 3 of the agreement provides that Abigail can introduce another occupant into the cottage. Clause 4 provides that each of the two occupants is liable for all gas and electricity consumed in the cottage during their occupation.

In April 2017, Abigail decides to sell the freehold estate in Oxford House to Edgar. The sale is completed late April 2017, and Edgar registered as proprietor. Edgar failed to inspect the property before purchase, and is now shocked to discover Betty, Connor and Darren in occupation. He wishes to obtain vacant possession of the house and cottage, and writes to Betty, Conor and Darren telling them to leave immediately.

At no point during Connor and Darren’s eight-month occupation prior to sale does Abigail seek to exercise her right under Clause 3 to introduce a new occupant into the cottage.

Advise Betty, Connor and Darren.

Filippo is registered proprietor of the freehold estate in No 1 and No 2 of a row of terraced houses. He decides to live in No 1 and sell No 2 to Griselda. As Filippo is concerned to protect the value of No 1, shortly after the sale completes he agrees with Griselda that No 2 will be occupied exclusively as a family home. The undertaking is formalised in a written document, signed by both Filippo and Griselda, and the covenant expressed to be ‘for the benefit of Filippo, his successors and assigns’.

Six months after Griselda moves into No 2, she undertakes to “Filippo, my neighbour” that the external appearance of No 2 will be preserved unchanged. The undertaking is contained in a written document signed by Griselda but not Filippo, and subsequently registered against No 2’s freehold estate.

A year later, Filippo sells the freehold estate in No 1 to Harrison. After completing the purchase, Harrison goes overseas for an extended holiday, during which time the freehold estate in No 2 is sold to a builder, Ian, who is registered as proprietor shortly thereafter. When Harrison returns, he is alarmed to see that the front wall of No 2 has been demolished by Ian to enable him to park vans in the front garden. Ian also informs Harrison of his plan to move out of No 2 for a couple of years to allow his student daughter and her university friends to live in the property. Harrison cautions Ian about covenants restricting the use that can be made of No 2, but as Ian was (correctly) told by Griselda prior to sale of No 2 that no notice of the “family home” covenant was ever entered on the Land Register, he simply replies that he will act in accordance with his legal rights and obligations.

Advise Harrison.

Julia is the registered proprietor of a plot of land that includes a house with single garage and an adjacent cottage. In January 2014, Julia allows her close friend, Kingsley, to live rent-free in the cottage. Given their long-standing friendship, Julia also tells Kingsley that he can use the garage to park his car.

Water reaches the cottage via a pipe running underground from the house. The water is metered on entry to the house, and the monthly bill paid by Julia. Julia agrees not to interfere with the flow of water to the cottage; Kingsley is grateful that he does not have to arrange a separate water supply. Julia has a collection of wine which she keeps in a corner of the cottage’s cellar.

In June 2015, Julia decides to sell the cottage to Kingsley. The freehold estate is transferred by deed, and Kingsley registered as new proprietor. In October 2015, Julia formally gives Kingsley the right to park in the garage in return for a payment of £200. The right is conferred by a deed signed by both Julia and Kingsley, but is not registered against the freehold estate in the house.

In October 2016, Julia sells the house and garage to Leo; he is registered as freehold proprietor shortly thereafter. Leo also buys Julia’s wine collection which remains in the cellar of the cottage. In February 2017, Kingsley sells the freehold estate in the cottage to Mark.

The following disputes have now arisen:

• Mark wishes to park his car in the garage; Leo objects to this
• Leo has interrupted the flow of water to the cottage; Mark objects to this
• Mark is demanding that Leo remove his wine from the cottage’s cellar

Advise Mark.

Nick,who lives and works in Germany, inherits the freeholde state in RoseCottage in 2004 and is registered as proprietor. Nick is too busy to return to England to manage the cottage and asks his friend, Oliver, to look after it. Oliver agrees, although he lives more than 100 miles away and so is not able to visit on a regular basis. In fact, after an initial visit in 2004 Oliver never returns to the property.

In January 2005 Petra, who has noticed that the cottage appears to be unoccupied, breaks in and takes up residence. The property has fallen into disrepair and over the next four years she spends a considerable sum of money refurbishing and redecorating it, including installing central heating and a new kitchen and bathroom.

Nick retires from his job and returns to England in February 2017, intending to spend his retirement in Rose Cottage. When he arrives at the property he discovers Petra living there. Petra refuses to leave, asserting that she has secured title to the property by adverse possession and saying that after all that she has spent on the property it would be a breach of her human rights to make her move out. Nick says that anyone who breaks into another’s property commits a criminal offence and has no right to be registered with title.

The rear garden of Rose Cottage is L shaped, with the bottom section (“the Strip”) running behind the garden of Apple Cottage, the next-door property owned by Quentin, and up to a road. When Petra moves into Rose Cottage she notices that the Strip receives a lot of sunlight and in 2006, after discussing her plans with Quentin, she builds a substantial summer house there. Over the years Petra holds many parties in the summer house to which she invites her neighbours, including Quentin. She also allows Quentin to use the summer house to host occasional drinks parties.

Quentin re-mortgages Apple Cottage in 2016 and discovers that the Strip actually forms part of his registered title and does not belong to Rose Cottage after all. Quentin asks Petra to vacate the Strip.

On the other side of Rose Cottage is a field owned by Raj, title to which is unregistered. Since moving in to Rose Cottage in January 2005, Petra has walked her dogs in the field and picked the wild flowers. To make it easier to get around she regularly cuts a path through the tall grass. She has also replaced and maintained the gate to the field. It is now May 2017 and Raj, who wishes to put cows in the field, has asked Petra to stop using it. Petra wishes to claim title to the field by adverse possession.

Advise Petra of her options in relation to Rose Cottage, the Strip and the field. Petra has asked that your advice include consideration of the effect of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Eleanor owns two properties, Green Gables and Red Gables, both of registered title. The properties are adjoining semidetached houses, each with a long back garden. The Red Gables garden contains a pond suitable for swimming and a paddock at the rear; the garden is accessed through the house and the paddock accessed by a ten feet wide driveway which runs down the side of Red Gables and onto the paddock. The Green Gables garden is accessed by a four feet wide path which runs down the side of Green Gables.

In 2014 Eleanor leases Green Gables to Freddie for five years while living in Red Gables herself. Shortly after Freddie moves in, Eleanor agrees that he can swim in the pond in her garden. Eleanor dislikes horses so makes no use of the paddock, but on occasion she walks down the driveway onto the paddock to admire the wild flowers that grow there.

In March 2016 Eleanor sells both the freehold of Green Gables and the Red Gables paddock to Freddie. The transfers are made by deed and Freddie registered as new proprietor. At the time of transfer, Freddie tells Eleanor that he wishes to keep a horse in the paddock; Eleanor replies that she does not mind what he does. In April 2016 Eleanor sells the freehold in the remainder of Red Gables (including the driveway) to Gary; the transfer is made by deed and Gary registered as proprietor.

Once Freddie becomes owner of the paddock, he buys a horse. He manages to get the horse into the paddock via the path to the side of Green Gables and a gate that he has made connecting the Green Gables back garden with the paddock, but now finds great difficulty getting the horse and its supplies in and out that way. He therefore wishes to be able to drive a Land Rover and trailer down the driveway to the side of Red Gables and onto the paddock.

Gary is refusing Freddie use of the driveway and has told him that he can no longer swim in the pond.

Advise Freddie

Jack and Kendra are the registered owners of ‘The Hollies’ which they live in with their four children aged from 3 to 19. In 2014, Jack’s business venture fails, leaving £150,000 owed to his creditors. Lionel is appointed as trustee in bankruptcy in January 2015. Jack has no assets apart from his share in the family home. Jack and Kendra own the property as tenants in common in equity, with Jack having a one-third share and Kendra having a two-thirds share. There is no mortgage on the property.

In May 2016, Lionel applies under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 and the Insolvency Act 1986 for an order of sale in relation to The Hollies. The property is worth £300,000. Lionel is also claiming that a deduction should be made from Kendra’s two-thirds share for an occupation rent to reflect the fact that since Jack’s bankruptcy Jack and Kendra have continued to live in The Hollies.

Jack and Kendra do not want to move. They have lived in The Hollies for 25 years and it has been specially adapted for the needs of their 19-year-old daughter, Mary, who is severely disabled. The local authority has offered alternative housing for rent but it is several miles away from The Hollies and in a very undesirable area. Their two children of school age (aged 7 and 15) would have to move from their present schools to schools with a much worse reputation. Kendra has a secure job and her mother, who lives nearby, walks over to help with child care while Kendra is at work; her mother has said that as she cannot drive she will not be able to carry on doing this if Kendra moves. Furthermore, significant building work is required to make the alternative housing suitable for Mary.

Advise Jack and Kendra.

Digestible Notes was created with a simple objective: to make learning simple and accessible. We believe that human potential is limitless if you're willing to put in the work.

© 2024 Digestible Notes All Rights Reserved.

Our Socials

Land Law Essays

Does the Land Registration Act 2002 resolve the tension between dynamic and static security?

When is a contract a lease or licence?

• Pay for coursework
• Submit coursework

Home > Land Law

• Date submitted

Question: Critically examine the way the courts have interpreted Section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989

Answer: There has been legislation in relation to the contract for sales and dispositions of interests in land since 1677 and it is important to note that much of the legislation was simply...

Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 77% | Course: Land law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 2299 | References: No | Date written: January, 2004 | Date submitted: March 29, 2011 | Coursework ID: 655

Question: What is a lease?

Answer: By virtue of s 1 of the Law of Property Act 1925, a term of years absolute in possession is one of the two estates in land that may exist either at...

Details: - Mark: 76% | Course: Land law | Year: 1st | Words: 1764 | References: No | Date written: February, 2009 | Date submitted: April 27, 2009 | Coursework ID: 551

Question: LAND LAW CASE STUDY: Paula and Paul, brother and sister, have recently discovered that their l7 year-old nephew Frank has been orphaned in a road accident and that they are his legal guardians. In anticipation of Frank coming to live with them, they decide to buy a bigger house with their savings and with some of the money left to Frank by his parents over which they have lawful control until Frank is 18. The new house, title to which is unregistered at all material times, is expressly conveyed into their joint names as legal and equitable joint tenants. There is no mention of the fact that Frank’s money was also used. Frank arrives and Paula and Paul employ a live-in personal tutor, Matilda. Matilda lives in a self-contained part of the house for which she pays Paula and Paul £70 a week. Unknown to Matilda and Frank, Paula and Paul sell the property to Perry. Perry is told, and believes, that Frank and Matilda are the vendors children. Advise Frank (who is now 18) and Matilda as to their right to stay in the property. Is the law in this area satisfactory?

Answer: In this problem, we are faced with the difficulties that can arise from the operation of the trust of land and the overreaching provisions of the Law of Property Act (LPA) 1925...

Details: - Mark: 74% | Course: Land law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 1810 | References: No | Date written: December, 2008 | Date submitted: April 27, 2009 | Coursework ID: 543

Question: To what extent have the courts recognised contractual licences as interests in land? Why is the issue important?

Answer: A licence is classically defined in Thomas v Sorrell (1675) as a permission to use land belonging to another which, without such permission, would amount to a trespass. It is the consent...

Details: - Mark: 74% | Course: Land law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 2109 | References: No | Date written: February, 2009 | Date submitted: April 27, 2009 | Coursework ID: 547

Question: In what circumstances may the burden of a freehold covenant pass to a successor in title of the original covenantor?

Answer: It is a general principle of English law that, while the benefit of a contract can be assigned to a third party, the burden of a contract cannot. In the law of...

Details: - Mark: 74% | Course: Land law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 1368 | References: No | Date written: February, 2009 | Date submitted: April 27, 2009 | Coursework ID: 550

Question: Critically examine the new law on land registration. What are the principal differences to the Land Registration Act 1925? Will the new law achieve the aims of its progenitors?

Answer: In considering how to write this essay it came to mind that there were two ways in which to interpret the above question. One interpretation would be that in order to answer...

Details: - Mark: 73% | Course: Land law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 1780 | References: No | Date written: October, 2004 | Date submitted: March 29, 2011 | Coursework ID: 656

Question: To what extent is it possible to predict the circumstances in which a plea of proprietary estoppel will be successful and the consequences thereof for the person against whom the estoppel operates?

Answer: The exact purpose or role of proprietary estoppel is a matter of some debate. On the one hand, and in similar fashion to the related doctrine of promissory estoppel, proprietary estoppel can...

Details: - Mark: 73% | Course: Land law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 2007 | References: No | Date written: November, 2008 | Date submitted: January 27, 2009 | Coursework ID: 548

Question: Analyse the methods by which legal and equitable mortgages might be created since 1925. What was the purpose of the 1925 reforms?

Answer: All land has an economic value, and a mortgage is one of the most effective ways by which an owner may realise it. Although today the mortgage is most commonly employed to...

Details: - Mark: 73% | Course: Land law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 2182 | References: No | Date written: January, 2009 | Date submitted: May 20, 2009 | Coursework ID: 553

Question: To what extent have recent decisions of the House of Lords clarified the circumstances in which a person may plead ‘undue influence’ as a defence to a mortgagee seeking to exercise its remedies under the mortgage?

Answer: The law of undue influence may be called in aid by a mortgagor seeking to avoid the consequences of a mortgagee’s exercise of one of its remedies. Often, it is pleaded as...

Details: - Mark: 73% | Course: Land law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 2881 | References: No | Date written: January, 2009 | Date submitted: March 10, 2009 | Coursework ID: 555

Question: Explain, with the use of examples, how freehold covenants may effectively impose controls over land use which bind all successors in title to the original covenantor and covenantee.

Answer: The concept of freehold restrictive covenants places around promises made by one party to another. In this sense, obligations are placed on parties in respect of freehold conveyances which bind partied to...

Details: - Mark: 72% | Course: Land law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 988 | References: No | Date written: Not available | Date submitted: November 27, 2012 | Coursework ID: 753

Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 »

Registering is fast and easy

Welcome back

Gain access

• Register with us
• Pay for instant access
• Or submit 3 pieces of your work for free access
• All categories (882)
• Commercial Law (56)
• Common Law (1)
• Company Law (8)
• Constitutional & Administrative Law (19)
• Contract Law (117)
• Criminal Law (89)
• Employment Law (9)
• English Legal System (80)
• Enviromental Law (8)
• Equity & Trust Law (20)
• European Union Law (58)
• Family Law (26)
• Human Rights Law (44)
• I.T. & the Law (6)
• Insolvency Law (2)
• Intellectual Property Law (15)
• International Law (21)
• Jurisprudence (29)
• Land Law (55)
• Law of Evidence (12)
• Legal Practice Course (4)
• Medical Law (15)
• Professional Skills Practice (1)
• Public Law (47)
• Roman Law (2)
• Tort Law (48)

Lawcoursework.com is an online library of UK LLB law student work.

We are based in Hulme near to the Manchester University campus.

Here you can buy quality LLB law coursework, essays, assignments, papers & dissertations to help guide and support your studies.

We only provide work that has been written by UK university students and is of at least 2.1 standard.

The site is run by graduates who understand the needs of students and the academic requirements of the LLB law degree programme.

So if you have any questions or need help using the site, please do contact us...

In partnership with

The University of Law

Land Law essay questions

Quick Reply

Related discussions.

• LAND LAW ESSAY PLAN please help me
• 1st Class Law Essays
• Cambridge Land Economy 2024 offer-holders
• Land Economy Cambridge
• law problem question
• Land economy at Cambridge
• Property law exam helpp
• OCR A-level Law Paper 1 (H418/01) - 26th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
• University of law online pgdl
• Freehold covenants problem question land law
• I wanna study law but know literally nothing
• Law degree/A-Level regrets
• Importance of A level options.
• LNAT essay review
• Land Economy, where else to apply
• Chances of LSE/UCL/Bristol with low LNAT?
• OCR A-level Law Paper 2 (H418/02) - 6th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
• Economics at either Oxford or Cambridge #university #oxford #cambridge

Last reply 3 days ago

Last reply 6 days ago

Last reply 1 week ago

Last reply 2 weeks ago

Posted 2 weeks ago

Posted 3 weeks ago

Last reply 3 weeks ago

Last reply 4 weeks ago

Posted 1 month ago

Last reply 1 month ago

Last reply 2 months ago

Last reply 3 months ago

Articles for you

Studying for a law degree; the differences between MLaw and LLB courses

Student story: studying for a career in law

How to become a barrister

Finding a university place in Ucas Clearing 2024: 10 top tips to help you get ready

Try out the app

Continue on web

BANKING PARTNER

How changes in goa’s land use law from ‘green zones’ to ‘settlements’ raise red flags, row explained.

Curated By : News Desk

Edited By: Shilpy Bisht

Last Updated: September 09, 2024, 13:48 IST

New Delhi, India

People want that land use should be converted from 'green zones' to 'settlements' so that both residential and commercial construction activity can be carried out. (Getty Images)

The new section, Section 17(2), eases the process of ‘correction’ of ‘green zones’, and empowers the chief town planner to make changes to the Regional Plan 2021 without any public consultation

Land in Goa has always been at the centre of political and legal conflicts due to the tourism, real estate, mining and environmental regulations of its forest and coastal zones. The new section, Section 17(2), introduced in the Town and Country Planning Act (TCP) eases the process of “correction” of “green zones”, and empowers the Chief Town Planner (CTP) to make changes to the Regional Plan 2021 without any public consultation.

The Goa government had replaced the contentious Section 16B of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 with Section 39A for ease of land conversions in January.

Section 39A allows the Chief Town Planner (CTP) to modify or alter the Regional Plan or the Outline Development Plan for carrying out change of zone of any land, except in a few cases.

What was the Controversy About Section 16B?

This section was introduced in August 2018 when Goan Forward Party’s (GFP) Vijai Sardesai was the TCP minister. It came into effect in October, 2018, under which, various fundamental and significant changes were “recommended and provisionally approved by the Town and Country Planning Board”, a Times of India report quoted a senior officer as saying.

Section 16B had given rise to a major controversy with allegations of corruption for converting land-use zones and its validity challenged before the Bombay High Court.

The provision was challenged before the high court and an interim order was passed, whereby the final approvals could not be granted. The petition is pending before the high court for more than four years.

Goa always has a requirement for housing, commercial and other infrastructure projects. The insertion of Section 16B to the TCP Act was done to cater to such requirements.

What is the Correction Under Section 17(2)?

‘Section 17(2)’ was inserted in the TCP Act to make “corrections” in the Regional Plan under the guise that there were “inadvertent errors” in it.

The rules framed under Section 17(2) enable private individuals to file applications to seek correction of allegedly wrong zoning of their plots in Regional Plan 2021.

An applicant has to submit a written form along with a fee of Rs 500 to Rs 5,000 depending on the area and documents to the CTP for “rectification”.

The CTP scrutinises the proposal and submits a report with analysis, including a report from a registered professional. The CTP may consult agencies such as PWD, District Collector, agriculture or forest department, depending on the property. The TCP department also conducts a site inspection.

The proposal is sent to the nine-member expert committee, headed by CTP for scrutiny, verification and recommendation.

There had been over 7,500 applications for change in land-use zone under section 16-B until the government consciously decided to stop accepting such applications in deference to the pending challenge of the section before the Bombay High Court.

What are People’s Concerns Regarding the Land?

People want that land use should be converted from “green zones” to “settlements” so that both residential and commercial construction activity can be carried out, allowing them build a house or residential complex or hotel.

So, when a plot is rezoned to a settlement, its value appreciates.

The petitioners, who challenged 12 permissions granted to build farm houses at Morjim including the land which was converted from orchard to settlement, have stated that in Anjuna, the property which was purchased in December last year for Rs 74 lakh was re-sold in June after it was converted to settlement for Rs 6.8 crore. In another property involving natural cover at Assagao, the land was sold at Rs 60 crore.

The petitioners also prayed that the CTP be directed to immediately inspect the properties at Morjim where huge strata of land has been converted from orchard to settlement and to submit the report to the court.

Urban planners and activists believe under the garb of “development”, unprecedented expanse of land has been cleared for construction. This means destruction of hill slopes, fields and natural cover in favour of real estate lobbies.

• News18 Explains