Land Law – Cases Final Exam 2025-
2026 Updated Questions with Complete
Solutions.
Roberts v Lawton 2016 - Answer a lease granted as a remedy for non-payment of a
rentcharge is not a mortgage
Walker v Burton 2013 - Answer The parties had bitterly disputed the Lordship of the Manor
of Ireby. The defendants had purchased the former Hall, and had been registered as proprietors
of the Lordship. The claimants having succeeded before the Land Registry adjudicator, they now
appealed against an order for costs which substantially reduced the sums they could claim.
swift 1st ltd v chief land registrar 2015 - Answer the act of registration, rather than the
quality of the prior disposition, creates and constitutes the propreitors title to a registered
estate or charge. chargee registered as a result of fraud could still claim indemnity
Cook v Mortgage Business Plc [2014] - Answer it has always been recognised that the
register cannot be a complete record and that there are some unregistered interests which
require and deserve protecion. The 2002 Act did reduce the list of overriding interests from that
contained in secion 70(1) of the Land Registraion Act 1925 . But the rights of those in actual
occupaion of the land remained on the list- baroness hale
City PBS v Miller [1952] Ch 840 - Answer held that a Contract to grant a lease didnt fall under
the LRA
Barclays Bank v Zaroovabli [1997] - Answer obtained a mortgage from Barclays in 1988. A
month later Z granted P a tenancy of the property. When the contractual tenancy ended P
became a statutory tenant under s.(1)(a) Rent Act 1977. However, the bank did not register
their charge until 1994. The trial judge gave the bank possession. P appealed.The court found in
favour of P. The determining date for an overriding interest was the date of registration, not
completion. If the lease was still in operation when the bank registered their charge, it would be
an overriding interest
Naional Provincial Bank v Ainsworth [1965] AC 1175 - Answer married couple split up, wife
allowed to stay in home owned by husband free of charge, he defaulted on loan which house
was collateral for, bank claimed house, wife claimed overriding interest, court held for an
interest to be overriding it must be proprietary, wife's was merely personal
Williams & Glyn's Bank v Boland [1980] - Answer mr boland owner of property mrs boland
financially contributed to it, husband took out loan and defaulted, but as mrs boland had
financial interest and actual occupation, it was an overriding interest to remain in the property
,City of London BS v Flegg [1988] - Answer All beneficial interests, including those protected
by actual occupation, are capable of being overreached. contributed to purchase price of house
lived in there, other family mortgaged property, held right was in the sale of the property, the
purchase price being overriden
Grace Rymer Investments Ltd v Waite [1958] - Answer oral leases where tenants in
possession
corbett v hill 1870 - Answer "whoever has go the solum... is the owner of everything up to
the sky and down to the centre of the earth"
Kelsen v Imperial Tobacco - Answer does a sign overhanging their land count as tresspass,
yes own the land directly above property
Bernstein of Leigh v Skyviews - Answer ariel photograph taken of land thought it was an
invasion of privacy, though they have a right to airspace above property they cannot stop
people flying over their property, balancing public interest
Anchor Brewhouse Developments v Berkley House - Answer right of cranes to hang in
airspace, can get an injunction to prevent it
Bocardo SA v Star Energy UK Onshore Ltd - Answer starting point that owners have right to
land under their property, owner still owns depths but further down less compensation will be
given
parker v British Airway 1982 - Answer rights to things found on ground, bracelet found on
floor of lounge, who owns it, have to consider if land owner is exercising control over the land,
in this case they werent considered to be
Waverly Borough Council v Fletcher 1996 - Answer diggin and using metal detectors in park
found broach buried under land, council got to keep it as the council had prohibited use of
metal detecter, thus finder was breaking rules
Dibble v Moore 1970 - Answer something that has been continuously moved is classed as a
chattle, green house in this case
Ellitstone v Morris - Answer if it is impossible to remove the chalet from the land without
destroying it then it has become a fixture
Gilpin v Legg - Answer to remove huts wouldnt cause so much damage that they should be
considered part of the land
, Botham v TSB Bank - Answer bath and kitchen fittings wer considered to be fittings as they
were attached and added for the purpose of the enjoyment of the property, decorations were
considered chattle
D'Eyncourt v Gregory (1866) - Answer there may be mansions in eng on which statutes may
be placed in order to complete the architectural design as distinguished from mere ornament
could be considered that they couldnt be removed despite not being cemented
Leigh v Taylor (1902) - Answer tapestries considered to be chattel as they are put there as
objects not to advance the look of the place as part of the overall design
Taylor v Hammer - Answer purchase of property with flagstones, which had been taken from
dog garden, buyer had no right to the stones, but theseller has lied about the removal off the
stones thus they were considered fittings, not general rule
Pitt v PHH Asset Management - Answer lock out agreements are entirely valid form of
agreement may make oral agreement that will be enforceable
Fay v Miller - Answer what should a contract contain, should be clear so that all the parties
know its meaning, boundaries were unclear
Chadwick v Abborswood - Answer what would a reasonable lay person think they were
buying, due to the contract
BROWN V GOULD (1972) - Answer can specify way price will be worked out later on and still
have a valid contract concluded
Lobatieres v Morington Estates - Answer agreement to execute a written document
complying with the s2 act as having an oral agreement wont make it valid
Wright v Robbert Development - Answer essential terms should be in the contract otherwise
it is invalid for uncertainty
Reccord v bell 1991 - Answer some info can be maintained in a collateral contract which is
seperate to the main contract and thus not subject to s 2
Total v Guinea - Answer agreement to grant a lease issued but had left out of the main
contract, dont want people to use s 2 to avoid bad bargains or back track, as there was nothing
left to be done thus valid
2026 Updated Questions with Complete
Solutions.
Roberts v Lawton 2016 - Answer a lease granted as a remedy for non-payment of a
rentcharge is not a mortgage
Walker v Burton 2013 - Answer The parties had bitterly disputed the Lordship of the Manor
of Ireby. The defendants had purchased the former Hall, and had been registered as proprietors
of the Lordship. The claimants having succeeded before the Land Registry adjudicator, they now
appealed against an order for costs which substantially reduced the sums they could claim.
swift 1st ltd v chief land registrar 2015 - Answer the act of registration, rather than the
quality of the prior disposition, creates and constitutes the propreitors title to a registered
estate or charge. chargee registered as a result of fraud could still claim indemnity
Cook v Mortgage Business Plc [2014] - Answer it has always been recognised that the
register cannot be a complete record and that there are some unregistered interests which
require and deserve protecion. The 2002 Act did reduce the list of overriding interests from that
contained in secion 70(1) of the Land Registraion Act 1925 . But the rights of those in actual
occupaion of the land remained on the list- baroness hale
City PBS v Miller [1952] Ch 840 - Answer held that a Contract to grant a lease didnt fall under
the LRA
Barclays Bank v Zaroovabli [1997] - Answer obtained a mortgage from Barclays in 1988. A
month later Z granted P a tenancy of the property. When the contractual tenancy ended P
became a statutory tenant under s.(1)(a) Rent Act 1977. However, the bank did not register
their charge until 1994. The trial judge gave the bank possession. P appealed.The court found in
favour of P. The determining date for an overriding interest was the date of registration, not
completion. If the lease was still in operation when the bank registered their charge, it would be
an overriding interest
Naional Provincial Bank v Ainsworth [1965] AC 1175 - Answer married couple split up, wife
allowed to stay in home owned by husband free of charge, he defaulted on loan which house
was collateral for, bank claimed house, wife claimed overriding interest, court held for an
interest to be overriding it must be proprietary, wife's was merely personal
Williams & Glyn's Bank v Boland [1980] - Answer mr boland owner of property mrs boland
financially contributed to it, husband took out loan and defaulted, but as mrs boland had
financial interest and actual occupation, it was an overriding interest to remain in the property
,City of London BS v Flegg [1988] - Answer All beneficial interests, including those protected
by actual occupation, are capable of being overreached. contributed to purchase price of house
lived in there, other family mortgaged property, held right was in the sale of the property, the
purchase price being overriden
Grace Rymer Investments Ltd v Waite [1958] - Answer oral leases where tenants in
possession
corbett v hill 1870 - Answer "whoever has go the solum... is the owner of everything up to
the sky and down to the centre of the earth"
Kelsen v Imperial Tobacco - Answer does a sign overhanging their land count as tresspass,
yes own the land directly above property
Bernstein of Leigh v Skyviews - Answer ariel photograph taken of land thought it was an
invasion of privacy, though they have a right to airspace above property they cannot stop
people flying over their property, balancing public interest
Anchor Brewhouse Developments v Berkley House - Answer right of cranes to hang in
airspace, can get an injunction to prevent it
Bocardo SA v Star Energy UK Onshore Ltd - Answer starting point that owners have right to
land under their property, owner still owns depths but further down less compensation will be
given
parker v British Airway 1982 - Answer rights to things found on ground, bracelet found on
floor of lounge, who owns it, have to consider if land owner is exercising control over the land,
in this case they werent considered to be
Waverly Borough Council v Fletcher 1996 - Answer diggin and using metal detectors in park
found broach buried under land, council got to keep it as the council had prohibited use of
metal detecter, thus finder was breaking rules
Dibble v Moore 1970 - Answer something that has been continuously moved is classed as a
chattle, green house in this case
Ellitstone v Morris - Answer if it is impossible to remove the chalet from the land without
destroying it then it has become a fixture
Gilpin v Legg - Answer to remove huts wouldnt cause so much damage that they should be
considered part of the land
, Botham v TSB Bank - Answer bath and kitchen fittings wer considered to be fittings as they
were attached and added for the purpose of the enjoyment of the property, decorations were
considered chattle
D'Eyncourt v Gregory (1866) - Answer there may be mansions in eng on which statutes may
be placed in order to complete the architectural design as distinguished from mere ornament
could be considered that they couldnt be removed despite not being cemented
Leigh v Taylor (1902) - Answer tapestries considered to be chattel as they are put there as
objects not to advance the look of the place as part of the overall design
Taylor v Hammer - Answer purchase of property with flagstones, which had been taken from
dog garden, buyer had no right to the stones, but theseller has lied about the removal off the
stones thus they were considered fittings, not general rule
Pitt v PHH Asset Management - Answer lock out agreements are entirely valid form of
agreement may make oral agreement that will be enforceable
Fay v Miller - Answer what should a contract contain, should be clear so that all the parties
know its meaning, boundaries were unclear
Chadwick v Abborswood - Answer what would a reasonable lay person think they were
buying, due to the contract
BROWN V GOULD (1972) - Answer can specify way price will be worked out later on and still
have a valid contract concluded
Lobatieres v Morington Estates - Answer agreement to execute a written document
complying with the s2 act as having an oral agreement wont make it valid
Wright v Robbert Development - Answer essential terms should be in the contract otherwise
it is invalid for uncertainty
Reccord v bell 1991 - Answer some info can be maintained in a collateral contract which is
seperate to the main contract and thus not subject to s 2
Total v Guinea - Answer agreement to grant a lease issued but had left out of the main
contract, dont want people to use s 2 to avoid bad bargains or back track, as there was nothing
left to be done thus valid
