Land Law Revision for LLB UK Students
Cases, exam pitfalls and OSCOLA-ready notes for the UK undergraduate land law syllabus.
Where Land Law sits in the LLB
Land Law is famously demanding, it asks you to keep five centuries of doctrine in your head while applying statutes (the Law of Property Act 1925, the Land Registration Act 2002, the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996) to modern conveyancing problems. The examinable core is estates in land, third-party interests, co-ownership, leases vs licences, easements, mortgages, and the registered/unregistered title distinction.
The leading authorities, Street v Mountford, Williams & Glyn's Bank v Boland, Re Ellenborough Park, Hill v Tupper, Wheeldon v Burrows, form a familiar canon. You are also expected to be at home with the Land Registration Act 2002 schedules, particularly Schedule 3 overriding interests.
Use this page to map the territory. Take the cases into ThinkLikeLaw for active drilling, easements problems in particular benefit from a Socratic walk-through.
Key cases you must be able to apply
Street v Mountford [1985] AC 809
Lease vs licence, exclusive possession for a term at rent is a lease, whatever the parties call it.
Williams & Glyn's Bank v Boland [1981] AC 487
Beneficial co-owners in actual occupation hold overriding interests.
Re Ellenborough Park [1956] Ch 131
Four-part test for an easement: dominant/servient land; benefit; diversity of ownership; capable of forming subject-matter of a grant.
Hill v Tupper (1863) 2 H & C 121
An easement must accommodate the dominant land, not just benefit the owner personally.
Wheeldon v Burrows (1879) 12 Ch D 31
Implied grant of easements on subdivision, continuous and apparent / necessary for reasonable enjoyment.
Lloyds Bank v Rosset [1991] 1 AC 107
Constructive trust in the family home, common intention and detriment.
Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53
Imputed common intention divides beneficial ownership in joint-name cases.
City of London Building Society v Flegg [1988] AC 54
Overreaching by two trustees defeats overriding interests in occupation.
Exam pitfalls to avoid
- Treating Street v Mountford as a checklist rather than a substantive test, examiners want you to apply 'exclusive possession' to ambiguous arrangements.
- Forgetting Schedule 3 of the LRA 2002, the modern overriding-interests regime narrows Boland.
- Confusing easements with profits à prendre. Profits give a right to take something from the land; easements do not.
- Mis-stating Wheeldon v Burrows as the only route to implied easements. Section 62 LPA 1925 is separate and broader.
- Drafting a leasehold answer without addressing the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985/1988 obligations.
How ThinkLikeLaw helps with Land Law
- Run easements problems through the assistant, Ellenborough Park, Hill v Tupper, Wheeldon v Burrows.
- Use flashcards for the LRA 2002 Schedule 3 categories so overriding interests come back fast in exams.
- Drill the lease-vs-licence distinction with the assistant on ambiguous facts.