Badges: 7
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
hey everyone super struggling with this assessment!

any help would be appreciated

Isabella decided to buy a farm in Somerset. Title was already registered. She bought the farm on 8 August 2017 from Diana. Title to the property had been registered in Diana’s sole name.

After moving in, Isabella was concerned to discover the following:

1. Her neighbour, Harry, told her that Diana agreed in writing with Harry on 5 December 2016 that Harry could use a track along one of Diana’s fields to reach the local sports centre. Isabella is opposed to Harry having an easement over her land.

2. Diana’s sister, Anna, had contributed 25% of the purchase price when Diana had bought the property, and an express trust had been drawn up confirming Anna’s interest. Anna had been living in a converted barn in one of the fields, but was working overseas for three months at the time of the sale. Anna claims that she has a right to live in the converted barn.

3. Diana had entered into a lease of the upper floor of the main building to Jamil on 22 June 2017. The lease was to commence on 4 October 2017 when Jamil was moving to Somerset to start a new job as a software developer for a local IT firm.

4. Diana had given an option to purchase the farm to Peter in March 2017. Peter now wishes to buy the property.

Advise Isabella what interests are binding on her.

from what I know Harrys interest is not binding, neither is jamils or Peters but annas is ?

many thanks
Badges: 10
Report 2 years ago
1. Expressly granted easement. Facts suggest that there is no deed so the easement isn't legal. Explain how the written agreement (if it is signed) creates an equitable easement. This a minor interest and therefore needs to be protected on the register. If it is protected by a notice then it is binding. If not, Isabella is not 'bound'. If it transpires that the document is a deed (it seems unlikely) then it is an expressly granted legal easement and must be registered under s.27(2)(d)). If it is not,it is equitable and see above .....

2. If A has protected her right as a minor interest it is binding. If not, the only possibility is that it overrides under schedule 3, para 2. There is an issue to be discussed regarding whether she was in occupation at the time of the sale as she hadn't been physically present for 3 months. Discuss relevant cases on this and apply. She probably was in occupation despite her temporary absence. However, was her occupation obvious on a reasonable inspection of the land? Presumably it would have been obvious that someone was living in the barn. If so, her interest will override.

4. Requires protection as a minor interest. If not then there the possibility of it being an overriding interest under schedule 3, para 2 as Peter has a proprietary right in the land. However, there was no occupation by Peter so his interest won't override.

Remember to backup all your points with cases and reference to the relevant statutory provisions.

Good luck

Amanda Grant Bitesizelaw (private tutor Leicester) Find me on LinkedIn
Last edited by Bitesizelaw; 1 year ago

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
new posts
to top
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.


Current uni students - are you thinking of dropping out of university?

Yes, I'm seriously considering dropping out (22)
I'm not sure (3)
No, I'm going to stick it out for now (41)
I have already dropped out (3)
I'm not a current university student (58)

Watched Threads

View All