FLK2 · SQE1 module

Land Law

Land Law tests the substantive rules underneath Property Practice’s procedure: what counts as a legal or equitable interest, and how third parties are affected by it.

Easements, co-ownership and the priority of interests are the most frequently tested areas, usually through a short fact pattern rather than a bare definition question.

What this module covers

  • Legal and equitable interests in land
  • Easements and covenants
  • Co-ownership: joint tenancy and tenancy in common
  • Mortgages and the priority of interests

180+ practice questions in this subject.

A real question from this module

Try it before you decide

A path across a neighbour’s land allows the owner of the neighbouring plot to reach a private car park more conveniently, though a longer public road route to the same car park is also available. Which of the following is NOT required for this right to exist as a valid easement?

  1. AThere must be a dominant tenement and a separate servient tenement over which the right is exercised
  2. BThe dominant and servient tenements must be owned or occupied by different people at the relevant time
  3. CThe right must accommodate the dominant tenement, rather than merely benefit the landowner personally
  4. DThe right must be the only practical means of access available to reach the dominant tenement at all
  5. EThe right must be capable of forming the subject matter of a grant made by a legally competent grantor
Show the answer and why

Answer: D. The accepted characteristics of an easement are a dominant and servient tenement, diversity of ownership or occupation between them, that the right accommodates the dominant tenement rather than merely conferring a personal advantage, and that the right is capable of forming the subject matter of a grant. Necessity, in the sense that the right is the only practical way to reach the dominant tenement, is not one of these characteristics, and a right of way can be a valid easement even where a less convenient alternative route exists.

Re Ellenborough Park [1956] Ch 131.