Problem Question for Land Law

Essay Instructions

Law3101 Land Law Coursework Assessment 

This assessment is compulsory and must be a maximum of 1200 words in length. The coursework should be typed on white, A4 paper, in 12 point font and submitted in a Word document. A bibliography should be included at the end of the coursework. Cases must be cited correctly, but the full citation may be contained in footnotes. Work which is not properly referenced will not achieve a good grade. Word count must be recorded. You must fully attribute any judicial quotations or passages taken from articles or textbooks. Failure to do so may result in your work being referred to the Academic Registry for plagiarism.

Coursework must be submitted by Monday January 7 by 4 p.m. electronically on Turnitin via the module site on MyUnihub, where it will be checked for possible plagiarism, collusion and word counts using the appropriate software. Failure to submit on Turnitin will result in the award of 0%. The work must be submitted without the title and without setting out the question in order for the word count to be checked. Please remember to state your word count excluding the title, question, footnotes and bibliography. The bibliography is to be submitted with your answer.  Do not submit hard copies– submit only on Turnitin.

You must retain a copy of your work.

Students may submit their coursework to the electronic system, Turnitin, as many times as they like prior to the deadline.  Each time they will receive an Originality Report giving them the opportunity to address plagiarism/poor referencing, etc. issues up until the deadline date.  Students will be required to submit a final copy by the deadline date. 

Please note that the marks given for coursework during the academic year will be provisional only and will be confirmed on publication of the final results at the end of the academic year.

Word Limits

(a) All coursework must state the word count.

(b) The word count excludes the bibliography and footnotes. Footnotes must contain citations only and not text. Any text contained in the footnotes will not be marked.

(c) All work which exceeds the word limit, fails to state the word count or states the word count incorrectly will be subject to penalties.

(d) Coursework which fails to state the word count or states the word count incorrectly will be penalised by the deduction of 2% from the total marks.

(e) Coursework which exceeds the word limit will be penalised by the deduction from the total marks of 1% for every 2% that the word limit is exceeded.

Referencing

For the correct method of citation of references, please see http://www.law.ox.ac.uk/publications/oscola.php

which gives the Oxford Standard for Citation of Legal Authorities.

Law3101 Coursework Question 2018/2019

Philip inherited some money from his father, and on September 3 2018, he bought a small bungalow, Hollow Cottage, in Hampshire, from Andrew. Title to the bungalow had been registered in Andrew’s sole name.

Advise Philip whether he is bound by the following interests:

(a) Andrew’s friend, Jamal, had contributed £50,000 to the purchase of the Cottage and had an equitable interest in the bungalow under an express trust. Jamal used to stay there most weekends when he needed a break from his job as a hedge fund manager.

(b) Sarah claims that Andrew granted her a lease of a spare room on May 28 2018 and that the lease was due to commence on September 19 2018, which is when Sarah had to leave her previous accommodation.

(c) Andrew’s neighbour, Meghan, claims that Andrew gave her in February 2017 a right of way over Andrew’s garden to enable her to take a shortcut to a nearby park. Philip is opposed to Meghan having an easement over his land.

(d) Meghan also claims that in June 2018, Andrew entered into a contract with her to sell Hollow Cottage to her.

Problem Question Solution Paper

Land Law

Name

Date

Word count (1200)

Philip inherited some money from his father, and on September 3 2018, he bought a small bungalow, Hollow Cottage, in Hampshire, from Andrew. Title to the bungalow had been registered in Andrew’s sole name.

Advise Philip whether he is bound by the following interests:

Scenario 1

         Philip is bound by the express trust. Even if it is Andrew who holds the legal title, if there is an express trust in place and informs of writing then Andrew is bound to provide it. In this case, Andrew is required to provide all the materials facts to Philip before selling the land failure to which the contract may be voided. However, Jamal can only claim that there was an equitable interest in the bungalow under an express trust if it is supported by writing. However, for this to be certain legal aspects under the express trust must be met. First express trust should be supported by evidence, and the legal owner of the land should declare if they hold land in trust[1]. However, in this case, the title is solely in Philip name and therefore there is no supporting evidence that Jamal had express trust in the land. If there is a declaration of trust, this should not have been obtained under undue influence, mistake or fraud given that this is illegal. Philip, in this case, is bound by the Sarah express trust if the legal owner and in this case Andrew’s should also declare that he holds an express trust with Jamal. According to the Law of Property Act 1925, if there is an express trust, this should be supported in writing[2]. Therefore, Jamal contribution, in this case, should be supported by writing if this is to be considered legal. This is further supported by the case law Smith v Matthews which shows that unless the declaration of trust and the contribution is evidence in the form of writing, then it is considered as illegal[3]. However, in some cases, the extrinsic evidence may be used as established by the legal determination in Iles v Iles[4]. The main issue, in this case, is that Andrew should provide the declaration of trust considering that the land title had not been transferred to Jamal.

Scenario 2

         Street v Mountford establishes the requirement for a lease to be considered legal and binding. In this case, Sarah should provide evidence in payment of rent, the specified period which the lease is supposed to last and that the owner of the property should in the form of writing have granted the passion exclusively to Sarah. Philip, in this case, is only bound by the claim of Sarah if there is material evidence to support her claim. Even though Sarah had not occupied the building, the existence of legal possession is the point where the property owner authorizes the person holding the lease to take possession of the building. In law governing the lease, there is a need for a person to have both exclusive occupations as well as the exclusive possession for the lease to be binding. Philip can only be bound by the lease if there was a specified period. In this case, Sarah lease is only valid if there is a time specified on when the lease should start and when it should end. Therefore, Sarah is required to show lease portraying the duration and the start date of the lease[5]. In this case, Sarah lease commencement date is September 19 2018. Even though this is the case, the lease that is in Sarah possession must show the maximum duration failure to which Philip is not bound by it[6]. There is also a need to show that there was a payment made in terms of rent. This helps in providing details on the fact that the contract between Sarah and Andrew and was binding and therefore Philip will be bound by it. Therefore, Philip can only be affected by the lease that Sarah holds if she can show that there was a commencement date, there is a duration of the lease is shown and that the rent has been paid[7].

Scenario 3

         The right of way that Meghan holds is a license that allows her to move from her land to the park while using Andrew land as a shortcut. In this case, Philip is not bound by the right of way that Meghan had with Andrew. First, the right of way to the park is a necessity and since the land is only used as a shortcut then cancelling it would not cause any damage to Meghan. Philip can only be bound with the right of the way if Meghan is using it to access the adjacent land. If it is Meghan who had sold the land to Andrew in the first place and the process was able to reserve the right of the way, then Philip may be bound by it if it has been included in the title deed[8]. The easements in land laws provide a clear difference between the private right of way and public right of way. In this case, Meghan has the private right of way that is given to her only as a licence by Andrew. Meghan has another access to the park, and therefore Andrew land is not the only way that can be used to access the park. Philip can prevent her from using the land as a shortcut to the park. Since the shortcut is not available to the public and is not used by the public, then it is not included as a part of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, and therefore Philip will not be bound by the permission that Andrew had awarded to Meghan[9]. Also, the right of the way in this case only benefits Meghan and does not address the interests of both parties[10]. Therefore, since there was no explicit agreement in place. Lastly, the right of way through the private property can only be legalised if it has been used for more than 20 years which is not the case since Meghan has used it since February 2017.

Scenario 4

         Philip bought the cottage on September 2018 while Meghan had entered in to contract with Andrew in June. If this is the case, Andrew is bound by the claim. However, Meghan should produce the control which showed the intent to sell and the intent to buy. For the contract to be legal and binding, there should be a consideration where one undertakes to make the payments in regards to the land. Therefore, Meghan and Andrew should have intended to come up with a legally binding relationship, and there must be an agreement in place. The sale of land requires that the parties entering into a legal relationship should have a written contract in place and should have all the terms of the contract. Unless Meghan part of the contract is written and all the terms and conditions, as well as consideration, have been integrated into the contract, then Philip is not bound by it. Therefore, the contract between Meghan and Andrew is legal if it was written, contains all the details regarding the sale of land and there was a consideration.  Since the title had not been transferred to Meghan, then Meghan should provide documents relating to the written contract to prove that she had entered in to contract with Andrew.

Bibliography

Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold [1988] EWCA Civ 14

Barrett  v Barrett [2008] EWHC 1061

Berkley v Poulett [1976] EWCA Civ 1

Bernstein v Skyviews & General Ltd [1977] EWHC QB 1

Hardy and Another v Haselden and Others CA (Bailii, [2011] EWCA Civ 1387)

Iles v Iles [2012] EWHC 919

S.53(1)(b) Law of Property Act 1925

Smith v Matthews (1861) 3 De GF & J 139

Street v Mountford [1985] AC 809

The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 ( CROW Act )

[1] Berkley v Poulett [1976] EWCA Civ 1

[2] S.53(1)(b) Law of Property Act 1925

[3] Smith v Matthews (1861) 3 De GF & J 139

[4] Iles v Iles [2012] EWHC 919

[5] Street v Mountford [1985] AC 809

[6] Hardy v Haselden [[2011] EWCA] Civ 1387

[7] Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold [1988] EWCA Civ 14

[8]  Barrett  v Barrett [2008] EWHC 1061

[9] The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 ( CROW Act )

[10] Bernstein v Skyviews & General Ltd [1977] EWHC QB 1