1) Nigel Treynor, a neighbouring property has approached Abeeda claiming that her plans to keep horses on the property are in breach of an agreement with a previous owner and produces a Deed stating this. Assuming that the Covenant has validly passed, can Nigel enforce the covenant?

a. Yes, as the covenant was created by deed the land is bound by a legal restrictive covenant under s.52 LPA 1925.

b. Yes, as the covenant was validly protected under s.32 LRA 2002 and will therefore bind the new purchaser.

c. No, as a restrictive covenant can never be legal under s.1(1) or 1(2) LPA 1925.

d. No, as the covenant has not been validly protected under the LRA 2002.

2) The previous owner's husband, Gareth, has approached Abeeda claiming to have partial ownership of the Hunters Rest. Although he never lived at the property he substantially redeveloped the property on the understanding he would own half of the property. Assuming he has a valid constructive trust, which of the following statements are true?

a. His right does not bind Abeeda as it is not protected as a notice in the Charges Register as required of Minor Interests under s.32 LRA 2002.

b. His right would not be binding as the purchase price was paid to two or more trustees as so was therefore over-reached. c. His right is binding on Abeeda as it has been protected by a Restriction on the Proprietorship Register as required by s.40 LRA 2002.

d. His right will not be binding as it was not protected as he did not have actual occupation of the property as required under the principle in Strand Securities v Caswell.

4) A neighbouring landowner Alberta has recently been seen driving over a lane at the bottom of the property. He claims to have an easement allowing him to drive over Waterford Lane. Which of the following would explain whether Alberta has a legal right of drainage?

a. Alberta would have a legal easement so long as he his right has been protected by registration as required under s.27 LRA 2002.

b. He could only have an equitable easement as it does not comply with the requirements of s.1(1) or 1(2) of the LPA 1925.

c. Yes, he has a legal easement as it can be upgraded to an overriding interest under Schedule 3 of the LRA 2002.

d. No, he has no easement as it fails to comply with either s.27 or s.32 of the LRA 2002.

5) Abeeda is thinking about setting up a business run from the property. She is worried that there is a covenant preventing her from using the property for commercial purposes. Is Abeeda able to use the property for commercial purposes?

a. Yes, as freehold covenants can never be legal under the LPA 1925, it will not be binding upon Abeeda.

b. Yes, as there is no restrictive covenant listed in the Property Register, Abeeda be able to use the property for commercial purposes.

c. No, as the covenant would be an over-riding interest under Schedule 3 of the LRA 2002.

d. No, as there is a restrictive covenant in the Charges Register of the Registered Title, Abeeda will not be able to use the property for commercial purposes.

6) Jerome Coates claims to have a 10-year lease over an building ("The Stables") within the grounds of the Hunters Rest. He produces a Deed which is validly signed and witnessed. What type of interest does Jerome have.

a. An equitable lease as it fails to comply with the formalities required under s.1 LP(MP)A 1989.

b. A legal lease as Jerome's occupation would have been reasonably obvious as required under Schedule 3 Part 2.

c. A legal lease as his deed is valid according to s.1 LP(MP)A 1989 and has been validly registered under s.27(2)(d) LRA 2002.

d. A legal lease as it complies with the formalities in Street v Mountford