5 single best answer questions on Land Law, written to the SRA specification. Pick an answer, then open the explanation: the correct option, why each of the others fails, and the authority behind it. No sign-up.
What counts as land; registered and unregistered title, and how interests are protected or override registration; the formalities for creating and transferring interests; co-ownership — joint tenancy, tenancy in common, severance and the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996; easements, freehold covenants and mortgages; and leases, including the line between a lease and a licence.
Questions usually ask whether an interest binds a buyer or a lender, or who owns what after a death or a dispute between co-owners.
Question 1
Different ways in which land can be heldMedium
Three sisters bought a registered freehold house in 2015 for £300,000, each contributing £100,000. The transfer declared that they held the house as beneficial joint tenants. In 2019 the eldest sister moved abroad and, by deed, assigned her whole beneficial interest in the house to a friend in return for £110,000. She did not tell her sisters about the assignment and no application was made to HM Land Registry in respect of it. In 2021 all three sisters discussed selling the house; the middle sister obtained a valuation, the youngest refused to sell, and nothing came of the discussions. In 2023 the middle sister made a will leaving 'my one-third share in the house' to her son, and told her solicitor that she wished the youngest sister to have nothing. The middle sister died last month. The youngest sister remains in occupation, pays the outgoings and has spent £8,000 on a new roof. The register still names all three sisters as proprietors and has not been altered.
Which of the following best describes the beneficial ownership of the house?
Show the answer and explanationAnswer A+
A
Correct answer
The friend holds one third as tenant in common; the surviving sister holds the remaining two thirds.
An assignment by deed of a joint tenant's beneficial interest severs that share; a will cannot sever, so survivorship operates on death.
The eldest sister's assignment was an act operating on her own share and severed one third, which the friend holds as tenant in common. The remaining two sisters continued as joint tenants of two thirds, so on the middle sister's death the youngest took that two thirds by survivorship and the will was ineffective.
The assignment by deed was an act by the eldest sister operating on her own share, severing one third for the friend. The other two remained joint tenants of two thirds, which passed to the survivor on the middle sister's death, her will being ineffective to sever.
Williams v Hensman — A joint tenancy in equity may be severed by an act of one joint tenant operating on his own share, by mutual agreement or by a course of dealing.
Law of Property Act 1925, s.1(6) — A legal estate cannot subsist in an undivided share, so severance affects the equitable interest only.
Rule card
Severance in equity: act operating on own share, mutual agreement, or course of dealing, all inter vivos. A will never severs; survivorship beats the will.
Why the other options fail
B
Surface reading
The assignment is ineffective because the other sisters did not consent, so the surviving sister is solely entitled.
A joint tenant may deal with her own beneficial interest without the agreement of the others; their ignorance affects neither the validity of the assignment nor the resulting severance.
Williams v Hensman — A joint tenant may sever by alienating his own share, no concurrence of the other joint tenants being required.
C
Adjacent ruleClosest alternative
The friend, the son and the surviving sister each hold one third as tenants in common, the deceased sister's will passing her share.
Severance must occur during the joint tenant's lifetime; a will takes effect only at death, by which time survivorship has already operated.
Ruled out by: The middle sister's disposition was made by will, which takes effect only on death, after survivorship has already operated.
Williams v Hensman — Severance of a joint tenancy must be effected inter vivos by an act operating on the share.
D
Right outcome, wrong reason
The friend, the son and the surviving sister each hold one third as tenants in common, the abortive negotiations having severed the joint tenancy.
Negotiations which come to nothing, one sister refusing to sell, do not show a common intention that the joint tenancy should be treated as held in shares.
Burgess v Rawnsley — A course of dealing severs a joint tenancy only where it shows that the parties treated their interests as held in shares.
E
Surface reading
The surviving sister is solely entitled in equity, an assignment of an equitable interest not severing a joint tenancy.
An assignment of a joint tenant's beneficial interest is the paradigm act operating on her own share and severs that share.
Williams v Hensman — An alienation by one joint tenant of his interest severs the joint tenancy as to that share.
Question 2
Interests that override registration and interests that need to be protected on the registerMedium
A buyer has completed the purchase of a farm comprising a farmhouse, fields and a barn. The farm was registered freehold land with title absolute, and the seller was the sole registered proprietor. The buyer paid the full price to the seller and is now registered as proprietor.
The charges register contained a notice of a covenant restricting use of the land to agriculture. Since taking possession the buyer has discovered the following. The seller's sibling contributed to the purchase of the farm in 2009 and claims a 25% beneficial share; the sibling lives in Spain and has never occupied the farm. The seller's cohabitant contributed substantially to the mortgage instalments over ten years, claims a beneficial share and has lived at the farmhouse throughout; two bedrooms are filled with her possessions and she was there on the day of completion. A neighbour has used the farm track daily since a written agreement signed in 2018, which was never executed as a deed and never noted on the register; the track shows visible tyre marks. Finally, a lease of the barn for ten years was granted by deed in 2022 and was never registered; that tenant has not yet taken possession, being engaged on another site.
Which of these interests, if any, binds the buyer as an interest that overrides the registered disposition?
Show the answer and explanationAnswer D+
D
Correct answer
The cohabitant's beneficial interest, because she was in obvious actual occupation of the farmhouse at completion.
An unprotected beneficial interest overrides a registered disposition where its owner is in obvious actual occupation and the money is not paid to two trustees.
The cohabitant has a beneficial interest under a trust and was living at the farmhouse at completion, with two bedrooms of possessions — obvious actual occupation. As the seller was the sole registered proprietor, payment of the price to him could not overreach her interest, so it overrides.
She has a proprietary interest under a trust and was in obvious actual occupation; the price was paid to a sole trustee, so there was no overreaching.
Land Registration Act 2002, s.29(2)(a)(ii) — An interest falling within a paragraph of Schedule 3 retains its priority against a registered disposition for valuable consideration.
Land Registration Act 2002, Sch 3, para 2 — The interest of a person in actual occupation overrides, broadly where the occupation is obvious.
Rule card
Registered land: Sch 3 para 1 — leases of seven years or less; para 2 — proprietary interest plus obvious actual occupation; para 3 — certain legal easements and profits. Interests already noted in the register take priority under s.29(2)(a)(i), not as overriding interests.
Why the other options fail
A
Right outcome, wrong reason
The restrictive covenant, because it burdens the land and was disclosed on the title.
The covenant binds the buyer, but because its priority is protected by a notice in the register, not as an interest that overrides.
Land Registration Act 2002, s.29(2)(a)(i) — The priority of an interest is protected if it is the subject of a notice in the register.
B
Adjacent rule
The neighbour's right over the farm track, because it has been used openly since 2018.
The paragraph covering easements that override applies to legal easements; a right granted by signed writing without a deed is equitable and needed a notice.
Land Registration Act 2002, Sch 3, para 3 — Certain legal easements and profits override a registered disposition; equitable easements require protection by notice.
C
Outdated lawClosest alternative
The barn lease, because a lease granted by deed takes effect at law whether or not it is registered.
A lease of more than seven years is a registrable disposition and must be completed by registration to be legal; only leases of seven years or less override automatically.
Ruled out by: The barn lease was for ten years, exceeding seven, so it required registration to be legal, and the tenant has not taken possession.
Land Registration Act 2002, Sch 3, para 1 — Leases granted for a term not exceeding seven years override a registered disposition.
Land Registration Act 2002, s.27 — A registrable disposition, including the grant of a lease exceeding seven years, does not operate at law until completed by registration.
E
Surface reading
The sibling's 25% beneficial share, because a beneficial interest under a trust cannot be defeated by a sale.
An unprotected beneficial interest gains overriding status only through actual occupation; the sibling has never occupied the farm.
Land Registration Act 2002, Sch 3, para 2 — Only the interest of a person in actual occupation can override a registered disposition on this ground.
Question 3
Severance of joint tenanciesMedium
Two women own a flat, both registered as proprietors, holding the beneficial interest as joint tenants. They had earlier discussed severance and could not agree. One woman then made a will leaving 'my share in the flat' to her nephew, and posted a letter to the other stating that she wished to sever the joint tenancy in equity immediately. The other woman refused to discuss the letter and never replied to it.
Which of the following best describes the effect of these events?
Show the answer and explanationAnswer D+
D
Correct answer
The letter severed the joint tenancy in equity, so the beneficial interest is now held as a tenancy in common in equal shares.
Unilateral written notice severs the equitable joint tenancy; the legal joint tenancy cannot be severed and the will is irrelevant.
The letter was a written notice of a desire to sever given to the other joint tenant, which s.36(2) makes effective without reply or agreement; the beneficial interest becomes a tenancy in common in equal shares.
Written notice of a desire to sever, given to the other joint tenant, is effective under s.36(2); the legal estate remains a joint tenancy.
Law of Property Act 1925, s.36(2) — Written notice of a desire to sever severs the equitable joint tenancy; the legal joint tenancy cannot be severed.
Rule card
s.36(2) LPA 1925: no severance of legal joint tenancy; equitable severance by written notice, or by acts effectual to sever personal estate.
Why the other options fail
A
Adjacent rule
Nothing was severed, because the women never reached agreement on severance.
Mutual agreement is one method of severance, but unilateral written notice under s.36(2) is another and does not require agreement.
Law of Property Act 1925, s.36(2) — Notice in writing by one joint tenant of a desire to sever is effectual to sever in equity.
B
Surface reading
The letter did not sever the joint tenancy, because the other joint tenant never acknowledged it.
Section 36(2) requires only that written notice be given to the other joint tenants; no acknowledgement or consent is needed.
Law of Property Act 1925, s.36(2) — A joint tenant desiring to sever shall give the other joint tenants notice in writing of such desire.
C
Adjacent rule
The will severed the joint tenancy, because it shows an intention to deal with a distinct share.
A will takes effect only on death, by which time survivorship has already operated; it cannot sever.
Law of Property Act 1925, s.36(2) — Severance in equity requires notice in writing or acts effectual to sever a tenancy in personal estate during life.
E
Right outcome, wrong reasonClosest alternative
The legal and equitable joint tenancies were both severed, so the women now hold as tenants in common throughout.
No severance of a joint tenancy of a legal estate so as to create a tenancy in common is permissible; severance operates only in equity.
Ruled out by: Both women are registered as proprietors of the legal estate, which s.36(2) prevents from being held as a tenancy in common.
Law of Property Act 1925, s.36(2) — No severance of a joint tenancy of a legal estate, so as to create a tenancy in common in land, is permissible.
Question 4
Rules for the passing of the benefit and burden of freehold covenantsHarder
Thirty years ago a seller sold a plot and the buyer covenanted, in the transfer, not to erect any building over two storeys. The covenant was made 'with the covenantee and her successors in title', the covenantee being described simply as owner of 'the adjoining estate', which the deed did not identify or define. A notice was entered on the burdened title. The estate has since changed hands twice, with no mention of the covenant in either transfer. The present owner of the plot, who bought knowing of the notice, has begun a three-storey extension. The current estate owner wishes to enforce the covenant.
Which of the following best identifies the principal obstacle to the current estate owner's claim?
Show the answer and explanationAnswer E+
E
Correct answer
The deed does not identify the dominant land, so the benefit cannot be shown to have been annexed to the estate.
The claimant's difficulty is proving the benefit passed: the deed identifies no dominant land.
Enforcement in equity needs the burden to run and the benefit to have passed. Annexation, express or under s.78 LPA 1925, requires the land intended to be benefited to be identifiable. The deed refers only to an undefined 'adjoining estate', and no assignment was taken on either later sale, so the current estate owner cannot establish title to sue.
Annexation, whether express or statutory, requires the land benefited to be identifiable; a reference to an undefined 'adjoining estate' does not suffice.
Law of Property Act 1925, s.78 — A covenant relating to any land of the covenantee is deemed made with the covenantee and successors in title to that land.
Tulk v Moxhay — The covenant must have been made to benefit dominant land retained by the covenantee.
Rule card
Burden in equity: Tulk v Moxhay (negative, taken for retained dominant land, touching and concerning, notice/registration). Benefit in equity: annexation, assignment or building scheme — annexation needs identifiable dominant land.
Why the other options fail
A
Civil-law intuition
The benefit cannot pass to a later owner of the estate at all, because covenants bind only the original parties.
The benefit can pass by annexation, assignment or scheme of development; the difficulty is the absence of identified dominant land.
Tulk v Moxhay — The benefit of a restrictive covenant may pass in equity to successors of the covenantee.
B
Surface reading
There is no obstacle, since the covenant is negative and the present owner of the plot bought with notice of it.
Notice and negativity address the burden; the claimant must separately establish that the benefit has passed to him.
Tulk v Moxhay — Enforcement in equity requires both that the burden runs and that the claimant has the benefit.
C
Right outcome, wrong reason
The chain of express assignments of the benefit was broken on the two intervening sales of the estate.
No assignment was ever made, so there was no chain to break; the prior problem is that no dominant land was identified.
Tulk v Moxhay — The benefit may pass by express assignment made on each disposition of the dominant land.
D
Adjacent ruleClosest alternative
Section 78 LPA 1925 annexes the benefit automatically, so the current estate owner's title to sue is unimpeachable.
Statutory annexation still requires the dominant land to be identifiable from the deed or surrounding circumstances.
Ruled out by: Section 78 annexation cannot help because the deed described the covenantee only as owner of 'the adjoining estate', which it did not identify or define.
Law of Property Act 1925, s.78 — A covenant relating to land of the covenantee is deemed made with the covenantee and successors in title.
Question 5
Privity of contract and privity of estateHarder
A head landlord granted a 15-year lease of a warehouse in 2019. The lease contains a tenant covenant not to use the premises for retail sales. Last year the tenant sublet the whole of the warehouse for three years. The sub-tenant was given a copy of the headlease before completing, and the sublease contains a covenant by the sub-tenant with the tenant to observe the covenants in the headlease. The sub-tenant has opened a discount shop in the warehouse. The head landlord wants the retail use stopped quickly and does not want to lose the tenant's rent.
What is the head landlord's best course of action against the sub-tenant?
Show the answer and explanationAnswer B+
B
Correct answer
Seek an injunction against the sub-tenant, since a restrictive covenant binds any occupier of the premises.
A head landlord has no privity with a sub-tenant, but a restrictive covenant in the headlease is enforceable directly against any occupier of the demised premises.
The covenant against retail use is negative. The head landlord may therefore enforce it against the sub-tenant as occupier, and in equity the sub-tenant, who was given a copy of the headlease before completing, took with notice. An injunction stops the use without forfeiting the headlease and losing the rent.
The user covenant is restrictive, and the head landlord is entitled to enforce a restrictive covenant against any owner or occupier of the demised premises; equity enforces such covenants against a sub-tenant who took with notice of the headlease.
Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995, s.3(5) — A landlord may enforce a restrictive covenant against any owner or occupier of the demised premises.
Tulk v Moxhay — Restrictive covenants bind those taking the land with notice of them.
Rule card
Sub-tenants: no privity of contract or estate with the head landlord, so positive covenants cannot be enforced against them; restrictive covenants can be, against any owner or occupier and against a sub-tenant with notice.
Why the other options fail
A
Right outcome, wrong reasonClosest alternative
Claim damages from the tenant only, because there is no privity of contract or estate with the sub-tenant.
It is true that no privity exists, but a restrictive covenant is nevertheless directly enforceable against an occupier, and the sub-tenant here had notice of the headlease.
Ruled out by: The covenant is restrictive and the sub-tenant was given a copy of the headlease before completing, so the absence of privity does not prevent enforcement against it.
Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995, s.3(5) — Restrictive covenants may be enforced by the landlord against any owner or occupier of the demised premises, irrespective of privity.
C
Adjacent rule
Claim damages from the sub-tenant, because privity of estate exists between the head landlord and the sub-tenant.
A sublease, even of the whole, creates no estate relationship between the head landlord and the sub-tenant: the burden of the tenant covenants passes only to an assignee of the tenancy.
Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995, s.3 — The burden of the tenant covenants passes on an assignment of the tenancy, not on the grant of a sublease.
D
Adjacent rule
Forfeit the headlease; the sub-tenant has no right to relief.
Forfeiture would destroy the tenant's rent, and in any event an underlessee may apply to the court for relief and a vesting order.
Law of Property Act 1925, s.146(4) — An underlessee may apply to the court for an order vesting the premises in it where the lessor is proceeding to enforce a right of re-entry.
E
Civil-law intuition
Sue the sub-tenant on its covenant in the sublease to observe the covenants in the headlease.
That covenant is given to the mesne tenant; the head landlord is not a party and the sublease does not purport to confer an enforceable benefit on it, so this is not the route to a swift remedy.
Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, s.1 — A third party may enforce a term only where the contract expressly so provides or the term purports to confer a benefit on it and it is identified in the contract.
Where candidates lose marks in Land Law
Actual occupation protects the occupier's proprietary right, not occupation itself — and not where the occupier failed to disclose the right when reasonably asked (Land Registration Act 2002, Sch 3, para 2).
The burden of a positive freehold covenant does not run with the land (Rhone v Stephens); a restrictive covenant can bind a later owner in equity.
When a joint tenant dies their share passes to the surviving joint tenants, whatever their will says. To leave it elsewhere, the joint tenancy must be severed first.