SQE1 · FLK2 · Free samples
Land Law — free SQE1 sample questions
76 free, worked single-best-answer questions for Land Law, shown in the official SRA SBAQ format with the correct answer and a cited rationale. Drill the full bank in timed practice once you’ve worked through these.
Question 1
A woman owns the registered freehold of a house. She grants her neighbour a right of way over her driveway by deed, expressed to last 'for the neighbour's life', in exchange for a payment of £5,000. The neighbour applies to register the right of way at the Land Registry as a legal easement. The woman argues that registration should be refused because the right is not permanent. Should the Land Registry register the right of way as a legal easement?
- A.No, because under s.1(2)(a) Law of Property Act 1925 an easement can only be a legal interest if granted for a duration equivalent to a fee simple absolute or a term of years absolute; a life interest satisfies neither, so the right can only be equitable.✓ correct
- B.Yes, because the grant by deed automatically makes the easement a legal interest regardless of its duration.
- C.Yes, because a right of way granted for valuable consideration is always capable of existing as a legal easement.
- D.No, but the neighbour may protect the equitable easement by entering a notice on the charges register of the woman's title.
- E.No, because the payment of £5,000 converts the arrangement into a contractual licence rather than an easement.
Why A is correct
## Correct Answer: A ### Legal Framework Under **s.1(2)(a) Law of Property Act 1925**, an easement (or profit à prendre) is capable of subsisting as a **legal interest** only if it is granted for a duration equivalent to: - an **estate in fee simple absolute in possession** (i.e. perpetually/forever); or - a **term of years absolute** (i.e. a fixed term). A right granted **'for life'** is equivalent to a **life interest**, which is a equitable interest under the 1925 property law reforms — not a fee simple absolute or term of years. Accordingly, a life easement **cannot be a legal easement** under s.1(2)(a) LPA 1925 and the Land Registry cannot register it as one. ### Why the Other Options Are Wrong - **Option B** is wrong: execution by deed satisfies formality requirements under **s.52 LPA 1925**, but deed alone cannot cure an inherent failure to meet the s.1(2)(a) duration requirement. Deed is necessary but not sufficient for a legal easement. - **Option C** is wrong: valuable consideration is relevant to enforceability and to whether equity will intervene, but it does not override the s.1(2)(a) duration rule. - **Option D** correctly identifies the remedy (a **notice on the proprietorship/charges register** under **s.32–34 Land Registration Act 2002** to protect an equitable interest) but is presented here as a secondary consequence, not the primary answer to whether registration as a *legal* easement is possible. - **Option E** is wrong: the payment of £5,000 is consideration for the grant; it does not convert the easement into a licence. A licence is a personal permission, not a proprietary interest, but characterisation depends on the parties' intention and the nature of the right, not merely the presence of payment. ### Practical Outcome The right of way for life is an **equitable easement**. The neighbour's correct course is to protect it by registering a **unilateral notice** against the woman's freehold title at the Land Registry under **s.32 LRA 2002**, so that it binds a future registered proprietor taking with notice of it.
Question 2
A buyer purchases registered land and the register shows a notice in respect of a restrictive covenant. The buyer's solicitor discovers that the covenant was created 30 years ago but has never been enforced, despite repeated breaches by previous owners. The buyer wishes to build an extension that would breach the covenant. What is the effect of the entry of the notice on the register?
- A.The notice guarantees the validity of the covenant and makes it binding on the buyer.
- B.The notice protects the priority of the covenant but does not guarantee its validity.✓ correct
- C.The notice creates a presumption that the covenant remains enforceable despite the breaches.
- D.The notice is invalid because the covenant has been abandoned through non-enforcement.
- E.The notice binds the buyer unless they can prove the covenant has been extinguished.
Why B is correct
Under s.32(3) Land Registration Act 2002, a notice does not mean that the interest is valid, only that its priority is protected. The validity of the covenant must be determined separately, considering issues such as benefit and burden, or possible discharge under s.84 Law of Property Act 1925. Option A is the strongest distractor but incorrectly suggests the notice guarantees validity, which contradicts the express wording of s.32(3) LRA 2002. The buyer takes subject to the covenant's priority but may challenge its enforceability.
Question 3
A registered proprietor mortgages their property to a bank; the charge is duly registered. Six months later, the proprietor purports to grant a neighbour a legal easement by deed for drainage purposes over the mortgaged land. The deed is not completed by registration. The mortgagor subsequently defaults and the bank seeks to sell the property. The neighbour claims the easement binds the bank and any buyer. Is the neighbour correct?
- A.Yes, because legal easements granted by deed automatically bind all subsequent parties without registration under the Land Registration Act 2002.
- B.Yes, because the easement qualifies as an overriding interest under Schedule 3 paragraph 3 LRA 2002 as the neighbour has exercised it within one year of the disposition.
- C.No, because the expressly granted easement is a registrable disposition under section 27(2)(d) LRA 2002; failing registration, it takes effect only in equity, and as an unprotected equitable interest it does not bind the bank.✓ correct
- D.No, because easements granted after a mortgage can never bind the mortgagee regardless of registration.
- E.Yes, because the easement was granted by deed and legal interests are overriding interests under Schedule 3 paragraph 1 LRA 2002.
Why C is correct
**Section 27(1) and 27(2)(d) LRA 2002** provide that an express grant of a legal easement over registered land is a *registrable disposition* which does not operate at law until the registration requirements are met. Until registered, it takes effect only in equity (s.27(1)). As an **equitable** easement, it cannot be an overriding interest under **Schedule 3 paragraph 3 LRA 2002**, which is confined to *legal* easements. To bind a registered chargee, the equitable easement needed to be protected by entry of a **notice on the register** (s.32–33 LRA 2002). No such notice was entered, so it is void against the bank and any buyer from it. **Option A** is wrong: express legal easements require registration to operate at law (s.27 LRA 2002). **Option B** is wrong: Schedule 3 paragraph 3 applies only to legal easements; this easement is equitable because it was never registered. **Option D** is wrong: timing is not the decisive issue — a properly registered easement granted after a mortgage could in principle bind a buyer (though priority rules under s.29 LRA 2002 would protect a registered chargee in first place). The real issue is failure to register. **Option E** is wrong: Schedule 3 paragraph 1 covers legal leases not exceeding seven years, not easements; and in any event this easement is equitable, not legal.
Question 4
A company holds a 15-year lease of office premises. The lease includes a right to park 'up to five vehicles' in the landlord's car park, which contains 20 spaces. The landlord sells the freehold to a developer who wants to build on the car park and claims the parking right is not a valid easement. Can the parking right exist as a valid easement?
- A.No, because the right amounts to exclusive possession of part of the car park.
- B.Yes, because the dominant owner does not have exclusive possession of the servient land.✓ correct
- C.No, because parking rights cannot exist as easements in law.
- D.Yes, but only if the company pays a separate fee for each parking space used.
- E.No, because the right is too uncertain to constitute an easement.
Why B is correct
In Moncrieff v Jamieson [2007] UKHL 42, the House of Lords confirmed that parking rights can be easements. The key test from Batchelor v Marlow [2003] 1 WLR 764 is whether the right leaves the servient owner with reasonable use of their land. Here, five spaces from twenty leaves the landlord with substantial use and control. Option A is the strongest distractor but misapplies the exclusive possession test; the company does not have exclusive use of the whole car park, distinguishing this from cases where all reasonable use is excluded.
Question 5
A buyer purchases unregistered land. After completion, they discover that a neighbour has been using a path across the land every day for the past 25 years, but no easement was mentioned in the contract or conveyance. The buyer now wishes to block the path. What is the most likely status of the neighbour's right?
- A.The neighbour has acquired a legal easement by prescription under the doctrine of lost modern grant.✓ correct
- B.The neighbour has only a licence which can be revoked by the buyer at any time.
- C.The neighbour has an equitable easement which is void against the buyer for non-registration.
- D.The neighbour has a legal easement but it does not bind the buyer as it was not disclosed.
- E.The neighbour must apply to the court for a declaration before any right can be established.
Why A is correct
After 20 years of continuous use as of right (nec vi, nec clam, nec precario), an easement may be acquired by prescription under the doctrine of lost modern grant, as explained in Tehidy Minerals Ltd v Norman [1971] 2 QB 528. Once acquired, a prescriptive easement is a legal interest binding successors in title. Option D is wrong because legal easements bind the world and do not require express disclosure in unregistered land. The 25-year period satisfies the prescription requirements, creating a binding legal right.