LAND LAW MCQS EXAM QUESTIONS
AND ANSWERS
VIEW RESULTS - Answer-A man and woman are adjoining land owners. 5 years
ago, the man entered into a covenant with the woman not to keep any animals on his
freehold land.
The women has granted a ten year legal lease of her land to a tenant. The man has
now brought ten dogs onto his land, and their barking is keeping the tenant awake at
night. The tenant wants to enforce the covenant against the man.
Which of the following options is the best advice to the tenant as to whether it can
enforce the covenant against the man at common law?
The tenant will be able to enforce the covenant against the man because the burden
will pass under the rule in Tulk v Moxhay
The tenant will not be able to enforce the covenant against the man as the burden of
covenants cannot pass at common law
The tenant will not be able to enforce the covenant against the man as the tenant is
not the freehold owner of the dominant land
The tenant will be able to enforce the covenant against the man providing the
covenant is deemed to touch and concern the land
The tenant will be able to enforce the covenant against the man because express
assignment has occurred
The lender would not be put on enquiry of undue influence because the loan is for
the joint benefit of the couple
Correct
This is correct. The lender would not be put on enquiry of undue influence because
the loan is for the joint benefit of the couple. In CIBC Mortgages plc v Pitt the House
of Lords confirmed that a lender would not be put on notice that there is a risk of
undue influence where a transaction is ostensibly for a couple's joint benefit, as it is
on the facts here. - Answer-A couple recently bought a holiday home in the Alps. In
order to fund the purchase, they borrowed money from the bank and secured the
loan by granting to the bank a legal mortgage over the freehold of their home in
England.
Which one of the following options best describes whether the lender would have
been put on notice of possible undue influence in the circumstances?
The lender would be put on enquiry of undue influence because the couple are
buying a property in a different country
The lender would be put on enquiry of undue influence because there is more than
one borrower
The lender would not be put on enquiry of undue influence because there is no
relationship of trust and confidence between the couple
The lender would not be put on enquiry of undue influence because the lender has
taken the necessary steps to bring home the risk of the mortgage
The lender would not be put on enquiry of undue influence because the loan is for
the joint benefit of the couple
,The lender should apply for a court order to obtain possession and then sell the
property. However, the mortgagor may apply to have the possession order
postponed.
Correct
This is correct and is the best answer. It is advisable for the lender to apply for an
order for possession, rather than exercising self-help and it is true that the mortgagor
can apply to have the possession order postponed under section 36 Administration
of Justice Act 1970. The other options are less correct because possession through
self-help is rarely if ever advisable with regard to residential property, the
Administration of Justice Act 1970 would apply here as the mortgaged property is a
dwelling, and the facts indicate that the power of sale has arisen and is exercisable
(in addition to the fact that it would not make sense to appoint a receiver here -
Answer-Five years ago, a business owner needed to borrow money to expand their
business. The business owner granted a first legal mortgage over the registered
freehold of their home to a bank as security for the loan. The ten year repayment
mortgage was granted by deed, included an express power of sale and the legal
date of redemption was set for one month after the mortgage was granted.
The mortgagor's business has been struggling recently and they have been unable
to pay the last three mortgage instalments.
Which of the following options represents the best advice to the lender in respect of
enforcing the security?
The lender should appoint a receiver and initiate a debt action against the mortgagor
because the power of sale has not yet arisen.
The lender should apply for a court order to obtain possession and then sell the
property. The mortgagor will not be able to apply to have the possession order
postponed.
The lender is not entitled to enforce the security on the facts.
The lender should take possession through self-help, rather than applying for a court
order, and then sell the property.
The lender should apply for a court order to obtain possession and then sell the
property. However, the mortgagor may apply to have the possession order
postponed.
The court will postpone the possession order under its inherent jurisdiction to grant
relief
Correct
This is correct. As the borrower can repay all the arrears, the court has an inherent
jurisdiction to grant relief from the possession order.
The lender has applied for the court order for possession and is not exercising its
right by self-help on the facts. The courts statutory jurisdiction to postpone does not
apply on the facts as the premises are residential. Further, there is no negative
equity on the facts. - Answer-A borrower is in four months' arrears with their
mortgage loan. The lender has a mortgage over the borrower's commercial
premises.
The lender applies for a possession order with a view to exercising its power of sale.
The borrower recently inherited a large sum of money and is now able to pay the
outstanding arrears.
,Which of the following options best explains whether the court is able to postpone
the possession proceedings in the circumstances?
The court cannot postpone the possession order as there is negative equity
The court cannot postpone the possession order as the statutory jurisdiction to
postpone does not apply
The court will postpone the possession order as the lender has not complied with the
Pre-Action Protocol for Possession Claims 2008
The court cannot postpone the possession order as the lender has exercised its right
by 'self-help'
The court will postpone the possession order under its inherent jurisdiction to grant
relief
The lender can sell the property as the power of sale has arisen and has become
exercisable on the facts
Correct
This is correct: if there is no express power of sale in a mortgage deed (as here)
then the statutory provisions in LPA 1925 apply and s 101 will give the lender such a
right in a legal mortgage.
The right has arisen as one instalment of capital became due as soon as one
payment had been missed: Payne v Cardiff; and the right is exercisable as some
interest has been in arrears for two months: LPA 1925, s 103(ii).
As the right has become exercisable due to the missed interest repayments, there is
therefore no need for the lender to serve a 3 month written warning/notice of the
sale. The legal date for redemption, which is the earliest date on which the borrower
can redeem the mortgage, has nothing to do with the lender's right to sell. - Answer-
Last year, a business owner granted to a lender a legal mortgage over the business
premises to secure a capital and interest repayment loan. The mortgage deed did
not mention any power of sale for the lender. The business is declining and the
owner has not made any mortgage payments for four months. Today, the owner
received a letter from the lender stating that the lender intends to sell the property
and recover the money due from the sale proceeds.
Which of the following statements best explains whether the lender has a right to
immediately sell the property?
The lender can sell the property as the power of sale has arisen and has become
exercisable on the facts
The lender can sell the property as the legal date for redemption has passed
The lender cannot sell the property until three months pass after the letter warning of
the sale has been received
The lender cannot sell the business owner's property without first complying with the
Pre-Action Protocol for Possession Claims 2008
The lender cannot sell the business owner's property as there is no express right for
the lender to do so
A Limited, B Limited, D Limited, C Limited
This is correct.
A Limited has a legal mortgage. The mortgage could not be legal without it having
being registered. To create a legal mortgage over registered land a deed must be
, used, which is then registered at the Land Registry. This will rank in priority to all
subsequent dispositions over the Property.
B Limited and C Limited both have equitable mortgages over the Property. An
equitable mortgage can be validly created and exist without a registration
requirement. As between competing equitable mortgages, the order of creation will
determine priority and if an equitable mortgage is protected by an entry in the
Charges Register of the burdened land, this will not affect the order of priority as
between competing equitable mortgages. However, if an equitable mortgage is
protected by notice - as B Limited has done, it will mean its mortgage will rank ahead
of all subseque - Answer-Five years ago A Limited was granted a legal mortgage
over a registered freehold property (the 'Property'). Four years ago, B Limited was
granted an equitable mortgage over the Property, which it protected by entry of a
notice on the charges register of the title to the Property. Three years ago, C Limited
was granted an equitable mortgage over the Property, which it did not protect by the
entry of a notice on the charges register of the Property.
Today, D Limited was granted a mortgage by deed over the Property. Assuming this
is then registered, which of the following options correctly describes the order of
priority between the different lenders in the event of default?
A Limited, B Limited, D Limited, C Limited
C Limited, A Limited, B Limited, D Limited
B Limited, D Limited, A Limited, C Limited
A Limited, D Limited, B Limited, C Limited
D Limited, A Limited, B Limited, C Limited
Correct
The neighbour should protect the right by the entry of a notice on the charges
register of the Property.
Correct
The neighbour has an inherently equitable easement over registered land- it is an
easement for an uncertain term, so can only take effect in equity (s 1(3) LPA 1925).
The easement has been properly created in accordance with s 53(1)(a) LPA 1925
and does not need to be registered in order to be validly created.
To bind a purchaser for valuable consideration, this type of easement should be
protected by entering a section 32 Land Registration Act 2002 notice on the charges
register of the Property. - Answer-The owner of a registered freehold property ('the
Property') grants their neighbour, by signed writing, a right to share the use of part of
their garden, until the neighbour's own garden has been landscaped. The owner is
now planning to sell the Property.
Which of the following statements best describes how the neighbour should protect
the right against a purchaser of the Property?
The neighbour does not need to take action to protect the right as they have an
actual occupation overriding interest.
The neighbour should protect the right by entering a restriction on the proprietorship
register of the Property in order to trigger overreaching.
The neighbour should substantively register the right as part of its creation.
The neighbour should protect the right by the entry of a notice on the charges
register of the Property.
The neighbour does not need to take action to protect the right as they have an
implied legal easement overriding interest
AND ANSWERS
VIEW RESULTS - Answer-A man and woman are adjoining land owners. 5 years
ago, the man entered into a covenant with the woman not to keep any animals on his
freehold land.
The women has granted a ten year legal lease of her land to a tenant. The man has
now brought ten dogs onto his land, and their barking is keeping the tenant awake at
night. The tenant wants to enforce the covenant against the man.
Which of the following options is the best advice to the tenant as to whether it can
enforce the covenant against the man at common law?
The tenant will be able to enforce the covenant against the man because the burden
will pass under the rule in Tulk v Moxhay
The tenant will not be able to enforce the covenant against the man as the burden of
covenants cannot pass at common law
The tenant will not be able to enforce the covenant against the man as the tenant is
not the freehold owner of the dominant land
The tenant will be able to enforce the covenant against the man providing the
covenant is deemed to touch and concern the land
The tenant will be able to enforce the covenant against the man because express
assignment has occurred
The lender would not be put on enquiry of undue influence because the loan is for
the joint benefit of the couple
Correct
This is correct. The lender would not be put on enquiry of undue influence because
the loan is for the joint benefit of the couple. In CIBC Mortgages plc v Pitt the House
of Lords confirmed that a lender would not be put on notice that there is a risk of
undue influence where a transaction is ostensibly for a couple's joint benefit, as it is
on the facts here. - Answer-A couple recently bought a holiday home in the Alps. In
order to fund the purchase, they borrowed money from the bank and secured the
loan by granting to the bank a legal mortgage over the freehold of their home in
England.
Which one of the following options best describes whether the lender would have
been put on notice of possible undue influence in the circumstances?
The lender would be put on enquiry of undue influence because the couple are
buying a property in a different country
The lender would be put on enquiry of undue influence because there is more than
one borrower
The lender would not be put on enquiry of undue influence because there is no
relationship of trust and confidence between the couple
The lender would not be put on enquiry of undue influence because the lender has
taken the necessary steps to bring home the risk of the mortgage
The lender would not be put on enquiry of undue influence because the loan is for
the joint benefit of the couple
,The lender should apply for a court order to obtain possession and then sell the
property. However, the mortgagor may apply to have the possession order
postponed.
Correct
This is correct and is the best answer. It is advisable for the lender to apply for an
order for possession, rather than exercising self-help and it is true that the mortgagor
can apply to have the possession order postponed under section 36 Administration
of Justice Act 1970. The other options are less correct because possession through
self-help is rarely if ever advisable with regard to residential property, the
Administration of Justice Act 1970 would apply here as the mortgaged property is a
dwelling, and the facts indicate that the power of sale has arisen and is exercisable
(in addition to the fact that it would not make sense to appoint a receiver here -
Answer-Five years ago, a business owner needed to borrow money to expand their
business. The business owner granted a first legal mortgage over the registered
freehold of their home to a bank as security for the loan. The ten year repayment
mortgage was granted by deed, included an express power of sale and the legal
date of redemption was set for one month after the mortgage was granted.
The mortgagor's business has been struggling recently and they have been unable
to pay the last three mortgage instalments.
Which of the following options represents the best advice to the lender in respect of
enforcing the security?
The lender should appoint a receiver and initiate a debt action against the mortgagor
because the power of sale has not yet arisen.
The lender should apply for a court order to obtain possession and then sell the
property. The mortgagor will not be able to apply to have the possession order
postponed.
The lender is not entitled to enforce the security on the facts.
The lender should take possession through self-help, rather than applying for a court
order, and then sell the property.
The lender should apply for a court order to obtain possession and then sell the
property. However, the mortgagor may apply to have the possession order
postponed.
The court will postpone the possession order under its inherent jurisdiction to grant
relief
Correct
This is correct. As the borrower can repay all the arrears, the court has an inherent
jurisdiction to grant relief from the possession order.
The lender has applied for the court order for possession and is not exercising its
right by self-help on the facts. The courts statutory jurisdiction to postpone does not
apply on the facts as the premises are residential. Further, there is no negative
equity on the facts. - Answer-A borrower is in four months' arrears with their
mortgage loan. The lender has a mortgage over the borrower's commercial
premises.
The lender applies for a possession order with a view to exercising its power of sale.
The borrower recently inherited a large sum of money and is now able to pay the
outstanding arrears.
,Which of the following options best explains whether the court is able to postpone
the possession proceedings in the circumstances?
The court cannot postpone the possession order as there is negative equity
The court cannot postpone the possession order as the statutory jurisdiction to
postpone does not apply
The court will postpone the possession order as the lender has not complied with the
Pre-Action Protocol for Possession Claims 2008
The court cannot postpone the possession order as the lender has exercised its right
by 'self-help'
The court will postpone the possession order under its inherent jurisdiction to grant
relief
The lender can sell the property as the power of sale has arisen and has become
exercisable on the facts
Correct
This is correct: if there is no express power of sale in a mortgage deed (as here)
then the statutory provisions in LPA 1925 apply and s 101 will give the lender such a
right in a legal mortgage.
The right has arisen as one instalment of capital became due as soon as one
payment had been missed: Payne v Cardiff; and the right is exercisable as some
interest has been in arrears for two months: LPA 1925, s 103(ii).
As the right has become exercisable due to the missed interest repayments, there is
therefore no need for the lender to serve a 3 month written warning/notice of the
sale. The legal date for redemption, which is the earliest date on which the borrower
can redeem the mortgage, has nothing to do with the lender's right to sell. - Answer-
Last year, a business owner granted to a lender a legal mortgage over the business
premises to secure a capital and interest repayment loan. The mortgage deed did
not mention any power of sale for the lender. The business is declining and the
owner has not made any mortgage payments for four months. Today, the owner
received a letter from the lender stating that the lender intends to sell the property
and recover the money due from the sale proceeds.
Which of the following statements best explains whether the lender has a right to
immediately sell the property?
The lender can sell the property as the power of sale has arisen and has become
exercisable on the facts
The lender can sell the property as the legal date for redemption has passed
The lender cannot sell the property until three months pass after the letter warning of
the sale has been received
The lender cannot sell the business owner's property without first complying with the
Pre-Action Protocol for Possession Claims 2008
The lender cannot sell the business owner's property as there is no express right for
the lender to do so
A Limited, B Limited, D Limited, C Limited
This is correct.
A Limited has a legal mortgage. The mortgage could not be legal without it having
being registered. To create a legal mortgage over registered land a deed must be
, used, which is then registered at the Land Registry. This will rank in priority to all
subsequent dispositions over the Property.
B Limited and C Limited both have equitable mortgages over the Property. An
equitable mortgage can be validly created and exist without a registration
requirement. As between competing equitable mortgages, the order of creation will
determine priority and if an equitable mortgage is protected by an entry in the
Charges Register of the burdened land, this will not affect the order of priority as
between competing equitable mortgages. However, if an equitable mortgage is
protected by notice - as B Limited has done, it will mean its mortgage will rank ahead
of all subseque - Answer-Five years ago A Limited was granted a legal mortgage
over a registered freehold property (the 'Property'). Four years ago, B Limited was
granted an equitable mortgage over the Property, which it protected by entry of a
notice on the charges register of the title to the Property. Three years ago, C Limited
was granted an equitable mortgage over the Property, which it did not protect by the
entry of a notice on the charges register of the Property.
Today, D Limited was granted a mortgage by deed over the Property. Assuming this
is then registered, which of the following options correctly describes the order of
priority between the different lenders in the event of default?
A Limited, B Limited, D Limited, C Limited
C Limited, A Limited, B Limited, D Limited
B Limited, D Limited, A Limited, C Limited
A Limited, D Limited, B Limited, C Limited
D Limited, A Limited, B Limited, C Limited
Correct
The neighbour should protect the right by the entry of a notice on the charges
register of the Property.
Correct
The neighbour has an inherently equitable easement over registered land- it is an
easement for an uncertain term, so can only take effect in equity (s 1(3) LPA 1925).
The easement has been properly created in accordance with s 53(1)(a) LPA 1925
and does not need to be registered in order to be validly created.
To bind a purchaser for valuable consideration, this type of easement should be
protected by entering a section 32 Land Registration Act 2002 notice on the charges
register of the Property. - Answer-The owner of a registered freehold property ('the
Property') grants their neighbour, by signed writing, a right to share the use of part of
their garden, until the neighbour's own garden has been landscaped. The owner is
now planning to sell the Property.
Which of the following statements best describes how the neighbour should protect
the right against a purchaser of the Property?
The neighbour does not need to take action to protect the right as they have an
actual occupation overriding interest.
The neighbour should protect the right by entering a restriction on the proprietorship
register of the Property in order to trigger overreaching.
The neighbour should substantively register the right as part of its creation.
The neighbour should protect the right by the entry of a notice on the charges
register of the Property.
The neighbour does not need to take action to protect the right as they have an
implied legal easement overriding interest
