Property law differs substantially between jurisdictions. These eight practice questions state the legal system they assume, so you can focus on applying the rule in each scenario rather than treating one country’s law as universal. Check your course materials and the relevant legislation and cases for the jurisdiction you are studying.
The MySummaries questions below use selected England and Wales rules where a jurisdiction-specific answer is needed. They are single-best-answer practice, not a claim about any particular exam’s format. For each one, choose the best option before reading the explanation in the same question panel.
Property law practice questions
1. Lease or licence?
This tests whether the substance of an arrangement can matter more than the label in a written agreement.
A student occupies a defined flat for a fixed term, pays rent and has exclusive possession. The owner calls the arrangement a “licence”, but provides no significant services and has no genuine right to share the flat. Assume the law of England and Wales. Which is the best answer?
A student occupies a defined flat for a fixed term, pays rent and has exclusive possession. The owner calls the arrangement a "licence", but provides no significant services and has no genuine right to share the flat. Assume the law of England and Wales. Which is the best answer?
Under the approach in Street v Mountford, exclusive possession for a term is central to identifying a tenancy, subject to the full circumstances. The label alone does not settle the question. Option A is the strongest distractor, but gives the label too much weight; rent is relevant but is not, by itself, decisive either.
The key is to analyse the rights actually granted, not simply quote a rule as if one fact settles every case. In a real problem, check for exceptions and any statutory protection that applies to the particular arrangement.
2. Does a right benefit land?
This tests the requirement that an easement accommodate the dominant land, rather than confer only a personal benefit.
A homeowner claims a right to use a neighbour’s path to reach their own property. Assume the law of England and Wales. Which feature most directly supports the requirement that the claimed right accommodate the dominant land?
A homeowner claims a right to use a neighbour’s path to reach their own property. Assume the law of England and Wales. Which feature most directly supports the requirement that the claimed right accommodate the dominant land?
An easement must accommodate identifiable dominant land: the right must benefit the use or enjoyment of that land, rather than be merely personal. A practical access route may satisfy that requirement. Option B is the strongest distractor because a benefit to the person alone is not enough. This addresses one easement characteristic, not whether every requirement for creation is met.
Do not conclude from this one characteristic that an easement has been legally created. A complete answer also considers identifiable dominant and servient land, separate ownership or occupation, and whether the right is capable of forming the subject matter of a grant. The method is to test each requirement separately.
3. Can a restrictive covenant bind a buyer?
This tests the conditions relevant to enforcing the burden of a restrictive covenant against a successor in equity.
In England and Wales, a buyer purchases registered freehold land. A previous owner promised a neighbour not to build on it. The covenant is negative in substance, was intended to benefit the neighbour’s identifiable land, and a notice protecting it is entered on the burdened title. Which is the best answer?
In England and Wales, the equitable doctrine associated with Tulk v Moxhay can allow the burden of a restrictive covenant to bind a successor where the relevant requirements are met. The negative nature of the covenant, the land benefited, intention and protection on the register matter. Option C is the strongest distractor: successor liability is not automatic for every promise.
The distinction between a positive obligation and a restriction is important: a promise to spend money or carry out work is not made restrictive just by its wording. In an actual answer, identify the nature of the obligation first, then address benefit, intention and registration under the applicable rules.
4. Does adverse possession transfer registered title automatically?
This tests the application process for adverse possession of registered land under the stated legal system.
In England and Wales, a person has occupied registered land without the proprietor’s consent for 10 years and wants to claim registered title. What is the best statement of the next step?
For registered land in England and Wales, 10 years’ adverse possession allows an application under the Land Registration Act 2002 process; it does not itself automatically change the register. The registered proprietor is notified and can respond. Option A is the strongest distractor because it treats the passage of time as an automatic transfer of registered title.
A strong answer keeps the registered-land procedure distinct from rules for unregistered land, and checks the statutory exceptions rather than assuming every application has the same outcome. If a problem gives further facts about the boundary or the proprietor’s response, those facts may be decisive.
5. Has a joint tenancy been severed?
This tests one method of severing a beneficial joint tenancy in England and Wales.
Two people hold land as beneficial joint tenants in England and Wales. One serves the other with a written notice of an immediate intention to sever their beneficial joint tenancy. The recipient does not agree. Which is the best answer?
Under section 36(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925, a joint tenant may sever by written notice, subject to the statutory requirements, without the other owner’s agreement. Option A is the strongest distractor because it confuses unilateral severance with a consensual change. Severance concerns the beneficial ownership; it does not, by itself, transfer the whole legal estate.
For a problem question, make clear whether you are discussing legal title or beneficial ownership. Then identify the alleged method of severance and test its requirements. Do not assume that a change in the beneficial shares changes who is registered as legal owner.
6. Which registered charge has priority?
This tests the stated priority rule for registered charges in England and Wales.
Two registered charges affect the same registered estate in England and Wales. There is no agreement changing their priority. Which general rule determines priority between the charges?
Section 48 of the Land Registration Act 2002 provides that priority between registered charges is determined by the order in which they are entered in the register. Option A is the strongest distractor because debt size may seem commercially important, but it is not the stated registration-order rule. Check the register and any relevant agreement in a real case.
When a question concerns priority, identify the competing interests and whether each is registered or protected in another way before reaching a conclusion. A useful answer states the rule and then applies it to the order shown in the register, rather than relying on which lender seems more deserving.
7. Is an object a fixture?
This tests the common-law approach to deciding whether an item attached to land has become a fixture.
A heavy machine is bolted to a factory floor to keep it stable during operation. Under the common-law approach, what is the best way to decide whether it has become a fixture?
The common-law approach considers the degree and purpose of annexation, using the circumstances to infer the objective intention. The fact of attachment is relevant but not conclusive. Option A is the strongest distractor because it treats physical attachment as decisive and ignores why the item was attached.
Use both parts of the test in your explanation. A firmly attached item may still be attached only to improve its use as a chattel; conversely, an item with limited physical attachment may be intended to form part of the land. The purpose and context matter.
8. What must be shown for proprietary estoppel?
This tests the usual elements of an English proprietary estoppel claim and avoids assuming that the remedy must match the promise exactly.
In England and Wales, an owner assures a relative that they will receive a farm, and the relative relies on the assurance by working for years for little pay. Which is the best statement of the proprietary estoppel analysis?
The analysis considers a sufficiently clear assurance, reliance, detriment and whether it would be unconscionable for the owner to resile. The court’s response is fact-sensitive and is not automatically an order granting the whole promised property. Option A is the strongest distractor because it skips both the reliance-based analysis and the remedial question.
Keep liability and remedy as separate steps. First establish why it would be unconscionable to withdraw from the assurance; then discuss a remedy that addresses the equity arising from the claimant’s reliance and detriment. Avoid saying that a promise always produces the exact promised estate.
Applying the questions to written answers
Multiple-choice practice checks whether you can identify a rule and spot a tempting overstatement. Written answers require you to show the chain of reasoning: state the relevant rule, connect the facts to each element, and explain what remains uncertain. The following example shows a partially complete answer and a mark lost for leaving the remedy analysis too general.
A MySummaries marked answer on proprietary estoppel can look like this:
An owner tells a relative, ‘This farm will be yours.’ The relative works on the farm for years for little pay, relying on that assurance. The owner later withdraws it. Advise the relative on a proprietary estoppel claim and remedy.
3/4The relative can argue that the owner gave an assurance about the farm and that they relied on it by working for little pay. That reliance caused detriment, so it may be unconscionable for the owner to go back on the assurance. The court can grant a remedy to address the equity.
The answer identifies assurance, reliance, detriment and unconscionability. It correctly avoids treating the promise as an automatic transfer of title.
Missed
−Apply the facts when discussing the remedy: explain why the promised farm may or may not be proportionate to the detriment and reliance.
Model answerThe relative can plead proprietary estoppel. The assurance must be sufficiently clear, and the relative must show reliance and detriment. The court considers whether it would be unconscionable for the owner to withdraw in light of all the circumstances. The relative’s years of work for little pay are evidence of reliance and detriment, but the precise facts matter. Any remedy is aimed at satisfying the equity and is not automatically the full promised farm.
That is a MySummaries paper, filled with property law material. Yours is written from your own notes. Start free
A missed mark is useful only if you turn it into a specific next task. Here, practise applying the remedy discussion to the evidence, rather than merely repeating that the remedy is flexible.
The weak-area view is most useful when you compare your results across questions, not when you treat one score as a complete measure of ability.
If the same distinction keeps costing marks, make the correction concrete: write down the missing element or application step, then practise using it in a fresh scenario. A prompt in the remediation tray might be:
You lost this mark twice: after establishing reliance and detriment in proprietary estoppel, what must your answer say about how the remedy relates to the equity?
How MySummaries helps
Build a revision board from your own property law notes, then use it to practise questions, review missed points and make cards from recurring gaps. Check the rules against the jurisdiction and materials for your course. Visit MySummaries.