Chapter 5 Self-test questions

. In Hill v Tupper, why was Mr Hill unsuccessful in his action to prevent Mr Tupper from hiring boats out on the canal?

Mr Hill had not properly acquired the right that he claimed, and therefore he had no cause of action against Mr Tupper.

The content of the right Mr Hill acquired against the canal company meant that his right did not count as a property right in land. As a result, that right could not bind a third party, such as Mr Tupper. Mr Hill therefore had only a personal right against the canal company.

Mr Tupper had a defence to the action by Mr Hill, as, at the time of his actions, he had no knowledge of the agreement between Mr Hill and the canal company.

The canal did not count as land, and therefore the right Mr Hill acquired from the canal company could not count as a property right.

. Which of the following statements best describes the distinction between personal rights and property rights?

A personal right is a right against a particular person, and can only be enforced against that person. A property right, in contrast, is a right that relates to a particular object and is capable of being enforced not just against one person, but against the rest of the world.

A personal right concerns only the actions of particular individuals and does not involve property.

A property right can be held only over land; all other rights are purely personal.

A personal right cannot bind a third party, whereas a property right will always do so.

. According to Harris' argument in the extract in section 5.2, which of the following statements best describes the importance of the concept of 'ownership' in English land law?

Ownership over land is key to English land law, as it is the ultimate estate which a person can hold in land, and all other rights derive from it.

Due to the feudal history of English land law, the concept of ownership has no relevance to the system.

In English land law, it is technically true to say that a person can never own land itself. If, however, a person has an estate in land, then they have ownership rights over that land. This means that the concept of ownership is important in English land law.

Ownership, although having some impact, is not a concept that is internal to English land law.

. According to Megarry J's analysis of Ferris v Weaven, why was Mr Ferris unable to evict Mr Weaven from the land?

Mr Ferris did not hold a right to possession of the land, as he had no legal estate in the land. The documents indicating that Mr Ferris had acquired a legal freehold in the land from Mr Weaven were a sham, as neither Mr Ferris nor Mr Weaven intended that Mr Ferris should acquire Mr Weaven's ownership rights over the land.

Mr Ferris had a right to possession of the land, as he had a legal estate in the land. However, as the sale of the land from Mr Weaven to Mr Ferris had been made in bad faith, the court prevented Mr Ferris from asserting his right against Mr Weaven.

Mr Ferris had a right to possession of the land, as he held a legal estate in the land. However, Mrs Weaven had a defence to Mr Ferris' property right.

Mr Ferris did not hold a right to possession of the land, as he had no legal estate in the land. This was because Mr Ferris had not paid the full market value of the land to Mr Weaven.

. Which of the following statements best describes the rationale behind the numerus clausus or 'closed list' principle?

Only rights that bind third parties count as property rights, and only rights that count as property rights can bind third parties. The proprietary character of estates and interests in land is therefore self-fulfilling, and the introduction of any new types of estates or interests in land is logically impossible.

The Law of Property Act 1925, section 1(2), prevents the recognition of any new types of legal estates or interests in land.

Only those interests listed in the Law of Property Act 1925, section 1(2), are suitable to be legal estates or interests in land, and therefore no new ones should be acknowledged.

If it were possible for new types of property right in land to be created, this could mean that a third party later dealing with the land may be subject to unusual burdens that are difficult to discover in advance. The value of a particular piece of land may be severely reduced by the imposition of such burdens.

Quiz Content