Land Registration (Land Law / Property Law)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

[INTERMEDIATE]

QUESTION
--------
In 2015, Olivia purchased 'Greenacre', a freehold estate, from Nigel. The transfer was registered, and Olivia was entered as the registered proprietor. In 2018, Olivia granted her friend, Ben, a 10-year lease of Greenacre. The lease was granted orally, and Ben moved in immediately, paying rent quarterly. Olivia provided Ben with a written note confirming the terms, but no formal lease document was executed, and the lease was not registered. In 2020, Olivia sold and transferred Greenacre to Chloe. The transfer was registered, and Chloe was entered as the new proprietor. Chloe was aware of Ben's occupation but believed his arrangement with Olivia was a mere licence. Chloe now seeks possession of Greenacre, claiming Ben has no right to remain. Ben claims he has an overriding leasehold interest. Advise Ben.

ANSWER FRAMEWORK
----------------
1. Identify the nature of Ben's interest: (a) Determine if a valid legal lease was created in 2018 under the Law of Property Act 1925, s.52 and s.54(2). (b) Consider the requirement for registration under the Land Registration Act 2002 (LRA 2002) for leases granted out of registered land.

2. Status of Ben's interest at the time of Olivia's transfer to Chloe (2020): (a) If a legal lease, was it a 'registrable disposition' under LRA 2002, s.27? (b) Did it take effect as an overriding interest under LRA 2002, Schedule 3, para 2 (interest of a person in actual occupation) at the time of Chloe's acquisition? Analyse the conditions: actual occupation; disclosure on inquiry; and the exception for leases requiring registration.

3. Effect of Chloe's registration as proprietor: (a) Application of the basic principle of registration under LRA 2002, s.29 (effect of registered disposition on priority). (b) Whether Ben's interest, if overriding, binds Chloe.

4. Consider any potential impact of Chloe's belief that Ben's interest was a licence.

5. Conclusion on Ben's rights against Chloe and advice.

MARKING GUIDANCE
----------------
A strong answer will: Correctly identify the relevant statutory provisions (LPA 1925 and LRA 2002). Accurately analyse whether a legal lease was created (considering s.54(2) LPA 1925). Correctly apply LRA 2002, s.27 on registrable dispositions, noting the 7-year rule for compulsory registration of leases. Comprehensively apply Schedule 3, para 2 on overriding interests, including all conditions and the crucial exception in para 2(c). Correctly apply the priority rule in s.29. Address the relevance of Chloe's knowledge/belief. Reach a clear, justified conclusion.

COMMON PITFALLS
---------------
['Assuming the oral lease is automatically a legal lease without considering s.54(2) LPA 1925.', 'Overlooking that a lease granted for more than 7 years out of registered land is a registrable disposition under LRA 2002, s.27(2)(b).', 'Misapplying the overriding interest provisions by not noting that para 2(c) of Schedule 3 expressly excludes leases granted for a term of more than 7 years which are required to be registered.', 'Confusing the pre- and post-2003 overriding interest regimes.', "Giving undue weight to Chloe's belief or knowledge; the test is objective and statutory."]

[INTERMEDIATE]

QUESTION
--------
In 2020, Alice purchased a freehold house, 'Greenacre', from Bob. The transfer was registered, and Alice was entered as the sole registered proprietor. In 2021, Alice granted a five-year lease of Greenacre to Charlie. The lease was not registered, but Charlie moved in and began paying rent. In 2022, Alice sold and transferred the freehold of Greenacre to David. David was registered as the new proprietor. David now seeks possession of Greenacre, arguing that Charlie's lease is not binding on him. Charlie claims his lease is binding under the Land Registration Act 2002.

Which of the following is the MOST ACCURATE statement regarding the status of Charlie's lease against David?

ANSWER FRAMEWORK
----------------
A) The lease is void against David because it was not registered and David had no notice of it.
B) The lease is binding on David as an overriding interest under Schedule 3, paragraph 1 of the LRA 2002, because Charlie was in actual occupation at the time of David's purchase.
C) The lease is binding on David as a registered disposition, because David's title is derived from Alice who granted the lease.
D) The lease is not binding on David because it is a legal lease for a term of more than three years and required registration under section 27 of the LRA 2002, which did not occur.
E) The lease is binding on David under the doctrine of notice, because Charlie's occupation was obvious and David should have made inquiries.

MARKING GUIDANCE
----------------
Correct answer: B. The lease is a legal lease for a term of more than three years (five years) and therefore required registration under LRA 2002, s.27 to operate at law (s.27(2)(b)(i)). Failure to register means it takes effect only in equity (s.27(1)). However, an equitable lease of this nature can still bind a successor in title as an overriding interest under Sch.3, para.1 if the tenant is in actual occupation at the relevant time (here, the time of David's acquisition). David's registration is subject to such interests (s.29).

Distractors:
A) Incorrect. Lack of registration is relevant, but notice is generally irrelevant under the 2002 Act (s.29). Actual occupation can make the interest overriding.
C) Incorrect. The lease was not a registered disposition; it was not registered as required by s.27.
D) Incorrect as a complete statement. While it correctly states the lease required registration and did not get it, it incorrectly concludes it is therefore not binding. It overlooks the potential for it to bind as an overriding interest via actual occupation.
E) Incorrect. The doctrine of notice does not apply directly; the statutory scheme of overriding interests under Sch.3 is the correct framework. While occupation may trigger inquiries, the binding effect stems from Sch.3, not the old doctrine of notice.

COMMON PITFALLS
---------------
['Trap 1: Focusing solely on the failure to register a legal lease (s.27) and concluding it is automatically void against a purchaser, without considering the overriding interest route via actual occupation.', "Trap 2: Misapplying the 'doctrine of notice' (relevant under the old Land Registration Act 1925 but largely abolished for registered land under the LRA 2002 framework).", 'Trap 3: Confusing the requirements for a legal lease (registration for >3 years) with the separate question of whether the interest that results (an equitable lease) can bind a successor.', 'Trap 4: Assuming that because David is registered, he takes free of all unregistered interests, without considering the specific list of overriding interests in Sch.3.']

[INTERMEDIATE]

QUESTION
--------
In 2020, Olivia purchased the freehold estate in 'The Paddock', a detached house with a large garden, from Nigel. The transfer was registered, and Olivia was registered as the sole proprietor. Olivia has lived there ever since. In early 2024, Olivia decided to sell The Paddock. During the conveyancing process, the buyer's solicitor discovered that, since 2015, a neighbour, Thomas, has been using a well-defined path across the bottom of The Paddock's garden to access a public footpath. Thomas does this every weekend to walk his dog. Olivia was vaguely aware of this but had never challenged it. There is no mention of any right of way in Olivia's registered title or in the documents from her 2020 purchase. Thomas claims he has a legal easement. Based on the principles of overriding interests under the Land Registration Act 2002, which of the following is the MOST ACCURATE statement regarding the potential enforceability of Thomas's claimed right of way against Olivia's buyer?

ANSWER FRAMEWORK
----------------
['A) The right is not an overriding interest and will not bind the buyer because it is not within the actual knowledge of the buyer and is not obvious on a reasonably careful inspection of the land.', 'B) The right is an overriding interest under Schedule 3, paragraph 3 of the Land Registration Act 2002 and will bind the buyer, provided it was exercised within the year prior to the purchase and would have been obvious on a reasonably careful inspection.', 'C) The right is not an overriding interest and will not bind the buyer because legal easements expressly granted after the implementation of the Land Registration Act 2002 must be registered to bind a successor.', 'D) The right is an overriding interest under Schedule 3, paragraph 2 of the Land Registration Act 2002 and will bind the buyer if it was within the actual knowledge of the buyer at the time of the purchase.', 'E) The right is not an overriding interest and will not bind the buyer because it is a mere licence, revocable at any time by the landowner.']

MARKING GUIDANCE
----------------
Correct answer is B. The scenario describes a legal easement (a right of way) acquired by prescription (long use) before Olivia's purchase. Under Sch.3, para.3 LRA 2002, a legal easement is an overriding interest if it is within the actual knowledge of the buyer, OR if it would have been obvious on a reasonably careful inspection of the land, OR if its exercise has been within the year preceding the purchase. The facts state the use is regular (every weekend) and the path is 'well-defined', making it likely to satisfy the 'obvious on inspection' or 'exercised within the prior year' tests. It therefore can override first registration (or a subsequent disposition) even though not noted on the register. A is incorrect because actual knowledge is not the only test; the 'obvious on inspection' and 'exercised within prior year' tests are alternatives. C is incorrect because it misstates the law for expressly granted easements; this is a prescriptive easement, and Sch.3, para.3 provides the specific rules for when such interests override. D is incorrect because Sch.3, para.2 relates to interests of persons in actual occupation, not easements. E is incorrect on the facts; the regular, unchallenged use over many years suggests a proprietary right (an easement), not a mere personal licence.

COMMON PITFALLS
---------------
["Trap 1: Option A focuses solely on 'actual knowledge' and ignores the alternative statutory tests of 'obvious on inspection' and 'exercise within the prior year'.", 'Trap 2: Option C is a common misconception but applies to expressly granted easements post-2002 Act; the question implies a prescriptive easement (use since 2015).', 'Trap 3: Option D incorrectly applies the Schedule 3, paragraph 2 test (actual occupation) to an easement, which is governed by paragraph 3.', 'Trap 4: Option E invites a factual conclusion that the right is a licence, but the facts (well-defined path, long unchallenged use) point towards a claim to an easement.']

[INTERMEDIATE]

QUESTION
--------
In January 2023, Olivia, the registered proprietor of Blackacre, granted a legal charge over the property to Bank A to secure a loan. The charge was executed as a deed but was not registered at the Land Registry. In March 2023, Olivia entered into a contract to sell Blackacre to Brian. The sale completed in April 2023, and Brian was registered as the new proprietor. Bank A only discovered the sale after Brian's registration. Brian was unaware of the charge to Bank A at the time of his purchase. Which of the following best describes the legal position regarding Bank A's charge?

ANSWER FRAMEWORK
----------------
A) The charge is void against Brian because it was not registered.
B) The charge remains valid and enforceable against Brian because it was created by deed before the sale.
C) The charge is void against Brian only if he was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice.
D) The charge is void against Brian because the failure to register means it did not operate at law.

MARKING GUIDANCE
----------------
Correct Answer: A. A legal charge is a registrable disposition under s.27(2)(f) of the Land Registration Act 2002. Under s.27(1), it does not operate at law until registered. Therefore, at law, it was never created. When Brian registered his transfer, he took the estate free from any unregistered charge (subject to very limited exceptions not applicable here). The lack of registration makes it void against Brian, the subsequent registered proprietor, regardless of notice. 

Distractors:
B is incorrect because registration, not execution of a deed, is what gives legal effect to a registrable disposition under the LRA 2002 system.
C is incorrect because the doctrine of notice is largely irrelevant in registered land; the key is registration.
D is partially correct in outcome but imprecise in reasoning. The charge was void *ab initio* at law for want of registration, not merely void against Brian. The phrasing in A is more technically accurate.

COMMON PITFALLS
---------------
['Relying on pre-LRA 2002 concepts of deeds or equitable charges.', 'Applying the doctrine of notice, which is largely abolished for registered land by the LRA 2002.', 'Confusing the position of a charge created before a sale with the need for registration to have legal effect.']