As promised, I want to consider a question and attack it from two different perspectives.  Now I am rather partial to land law and, therefore, I want to start with a topic from land law.  If we consider a question from 2010 of the University of London International Programmes.  It read:

“The Land Registration Act 2002 marks a significant development. In particular it strikes an appropriate balance between the needs of the purchaser and those who are entitled to other interests in the land being purchased.” How far do you agree with this assessment of the provisions in the Land Registration Act 2002 other than those relating to adverse possession?  

It is a short question.  Read it three times.  The first time...read it normally...as if you were reading a novel.  Just to see what it says.  The second time, pause after each sentence and try and work out what are the key words/phrases.  The third time, try and read it with a plan in mind.  Let's try and see if it will work.

Go back and read it through once.  You should have at least picked up that it had to do with the LRA 2002 (at the beginning) and that you shouldn't discuss adverse possession issues (at the end).

Now go back and read it a second time.  You should have seen certain key words/phrases like: 'significant development', 'strikes an appropriate balance' and 'do you agree'.  So now you should be getting a flavour of what you need to answer.

As you read it a third time - - now for the plan.  Do you agree with the statement (so 'how far' as you are asked)?  Or not (again...'how far')?.

I have deliberately chosen this question because in doing English land law, you need to get to grips with the LRA and the changes it has made to conveyancing.  By way of background, you must remember that the 2002 Act had a predecessor…the LRA 1925 and the case law under that Act.  Also, the old s.70(1)(g) has been ‘refined’ by Schedule 3 to the LRA 2002. 

I want to focus on the question first by agreeing with it and then by disagreeing with it.  I am going to keep it short as I don’t wish this to bore you.  The idea of the exercise is for you to understand persuasive writing.  Also, it assumes you have read the section on Registration of Title in your University’s handouts or Textbooks.

[DISCUSSION BASED ON ARGUING IN FAVOUR OF THE STATEMENT - - I WILL DO AN INTRODUCTION AND THEN THE DISCUSSION]

The clear and untenable flaws in The Land Registration Act 1925, gave birth to its successor, the Land Registration Act 2002.  The LRA 1925 had come into force with the hopeful expectation that it would address the cumbersome nature of unregistered conveyancing, and having to prove good root of title on each sale.  With the advent of registration of estates and interests in land being easily determinable, the essence of the 1925 legislation was to provide a degree of transparency in conveyancing with a single register premised on a mirror principle, curtain principle, and insurance principle.

Although the LRA 2002 has its roots in the 1925 legislation, this in no way suggest that it is simply a repeat of the old law, rather, its implementation marks a significant development in registered land conveyancing.  Indeed, one of the most striking aspects of the 2002 Act, is that it has sought to address the clear shortcomings of its predecessor, not least, ensuring that the troublesome issues which arose under s.70(1)(g) of the LRA 1925 are unlikely to be repeated.  There is arguably no doubt, that the appropriate balance as to the competing needs of the purchaser and other interested persons has been struck as the impact of the 2002 Act is such, that the unsatisfactory judgment in Chhokar v Chhokar (1984) is arguably, confined to history.  The Land Registry and the Law Commission have sought to produce a response, culminating in the enactment of the LRA 2002, that appears to have met the various shortcomings and provided a degree of certainty not previously available under the 1925 legislation.

[Further discussions going into the essay would then be necessary]

------------------------------------

[DISCUSSION BASED ON ARGUING AGAINST THE STATEMENT - - I WILL USE THE SAME INTRODUCTION AND THEN THE DISCUSSION]

The clear and untenable flaws in The Land Registration Act 1925, gave birth to its successor, the Land Registration Act 2002.  The LRA 1925 had come into force with the hopeful expectation that it would address the cumbersome nature of unregistered conveyancing, and having to prove good root of title on each sale.  With the advent of registration of estates and interests in land being easily determinable, the essence of the 1925 legislation was to provide a degree of transparency in conveyancing with a single register premised on a mirror principle, curtain principle, and insurance principle.

Although the Land Registry and the Law Commission collaborated to produce ‘Land registration for the twenty-first century: a conveyancing revolution’ (Law Com. No. 271), the implementation of the LRA 2002 appears to have fell well short of expectations and certainly appears to have ‘missed the mark’ rather than ‘a balance being struck’.  The clear intention appears to have been to address the shortcomings in the LRA 1925.  However, Schedule 3 to the LRA 2002 appears no more than a restatement of s.70(1)(g) of the 1925 legislation, and it is not difficult to foresee a decision in Chhokar v Chhokar (1984) being repeated under the 2002 Act.  With interests and rights still ‘hidden’ behind a trust, and actual occupation a continuing feature under the restated Schedule 3, the needs of the purchaser and those with an interest in land, remain as tenuous as it was before the implementation of the 2002 Act.

[Further discussions going into the essay would then be necessary]

---------------------------------

What these two approaches do, is to allow you to see how you would start attacking a question, regardless of the slant you take.  You can use the same information, the same law, the same facts, and use it in the way you wish to discuss your argument.  Also, notice that I focused on the words used by the examiner and not go off at a tangent.  Also, there was no need to labour any issues relating to unregistered land conveyancing.

As we build up over time, I will offer some fuller length discussions. 

[PLEASE DO NOT TRY TO MEMORISE WHAT IS WRITTEN, RATHER LEARN TO ENGAGE WITH THE WRITING…LEARN THE RULES…YOU CAN THEN WRITE ON ANYTHING]