land law – BIUT Latest Exam With
Quality Complete Solutions 2025-2026
Updated.
LPA 1925 ss1(6)
co-ownership of the legal interest - Answer co-ownership of the legal interest necessarily
takes the form of joint tenancy
equity follows the law - so it's assumed the beneficial interest is held by the joint tenants also
co-ownership of the beneficial interest - Answer may take the form of joint tenancy or
tenants in common
to be joint tenants: had to satisfy 4 unities (possession, time, title, interest)
if hold unequal share of interest: no joint tenancy
the statutory trust
LPA 1925 - S34 - Answer whenever legal interest in land is transferred to co-owners, law
imposes a statutory trust of land - compels them to hold land on trust for themselves as B's
acquiring a beneficial interest via express trust - Answer to be validly created - express trust
of land must be manifested and proved by signed writing - LPA 1925 s53(1)(b)
express trust - sole legal owner - Answer creates an express trust of land, by executing a
document declaring the trust
sole beneficial owner
express trust - legal co-owners - Answer hold their legal interest on statutory trust and it's
assumed BI mirrors the legal interest and so is held on joint tenancy. (50/50)
- Legal co-owners may, however, expressly declare how the beneficial interest is held via Land
Registry form JO, OR; in the deed of conveyance
Goodman v Gallant - Answer express trust conclusive as to the beneficial interests of it's B's.
, establishing the constructive trust: sole legal owner - Answer - Lloyds bank v rossett criteria
- X & Y must hold express common intention that Y should have an interest in land
-or inferred common intention (contribution to purchase price or mortgage payments)
'referability rule' (paying for bills etc insufficient)
-common intention must be detrimentally relied upon by Y (where £ contribution - detriment
assumed), or making improvements to home etc.
if no common intention as to quantification proved - court imputes it with regard to what is fair
establishing the CT: Joint legal ownership - Answer Stack v Dowden; Jones v Kernott
- X & Y must hold an express or inferred common intention that y should have a greater than
50% share in the property.
-inferred common intention can be based on X & Y's 'whole course of conduct'
note: this test doesn't demand detrimental reliance or £ contribution.
'whole course of conduct' - Answer - 'the purpose for which the home was acquired'
- nature of parties relationship
- whether they had children for whom they both had responsibility to provide a home
- how the purchase was financed
- how the parties arranged finances - separately or together or both
-household expenses
stack v dowden - Answer unmarried, finances seperate
joint names
C entitled to 65% share, as that reflected her contribution to the purchase of the property
The fact that she and S had lived together for such a long time and had children together, yet
had kept their affairs rigidly separate, was strongly indicative that they did not intend their
shares, even in the property that was put into their joint names, to be equal, and she had made
good her case for a higher share.
Abbott v Abbott - Answer married, joint bank account
Quality Complete Solutions 2025-2026
Updated.
LPA 1925 ss1(6)
co-ownership of the legal interest - Answer co-ownership of the legal interest necessarily
takes the form of joint tenancy
equity follows the law - so it's assumed the beneficial interest is held by the joint tenants also
co-ownership of the beneficial interest - Answer may take the form of joint tenancy or
tenants in common
to be joint tenants: had to satisfy 4 unities (possession, time, title, interest)
if hold unequal share of interest: no joint tenancy
the statutory trust
LPA 1925 - S34 - Answer whenever legal interest in land is transferred to co-owners, law
imposes a statutory trust of land - compels them to hold land on trust for themselves as B's
acquiring a beneficial interest via express trust - Answer to be validly created - express trust
of land must be manifested and proved by signed writing - LPA 1925 s53(1)(b)
express trust - sole legal owner - Answer creates an express trust of land, by executing a
document declaring the trust
sole beneficial owner
express trust - legal co-owners - Answer hold their legal interest on statutory trust and it's
assumed BI mirrors the legal interest and so is held on joint tenancy. (50/50)
- Legal co-owners may, however, expressly declare how the beneficial interest is held via Land
Registry form JO, OR; in the deed of conveyance
Goodman v Gallant - Answer express trust conclusive as to the beneficial interests of it's B's.
, establishing the constructive trust: sole legal owner - Answer - Lloyds bank v rossett criteria
- X & Y must hold express common intention that Y should have an interest in land
-or inferred common intention (contribution to purchase price or mortgage payments)
'referability rule' (paying for bills etc insufficient)
-common intention must be detrimentally relied upon by Y (where £ contribution - detriment
assumed), or making improvements to home etc.
if no common intention as to quantification proved - court imputes it with regard to what is fair
establishing the CT: Joint legal ownership - Answer Stack v Dowden; Jones v Kernott
- X & Y must hold an express or inferred common intention that y should have a greater than
50% share in the property.
-inferred common intention can be based on X & Y's 'whole course of conduct'
note: this test doesn't demand detrimental reliance or £ contribution.
'whole course of conduct' - Answer - 'the purpose for which the home was acquired'
- nature of parties relationship
- whether they had children for whom they both had responsibility to provide a home
- how the purchase was financed
- how the parties arranged finances - separately or together or both
-household expenses
stack v dowden - Answer unmarried, finances seperate
joint names
C entitled to 65% share, as that reflected her contribution to the purchase of the property
The fact that she and S had lived together for such a long time and had children together, yet
had kept their affairs rigidly separate, was strongly indicative that they did not intend their
shares, even in the property that was put into their joint names, to be equal, and she had made
good her case for a higher share.
Abbott v Abbott - Answer married, joint bank account
