2022 Autumn LLB2220_LLB220 Supp_Def REMOTE Exam WG_SWS_SYD

.pdf

School

University of Wollongong *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

220

Subject

Law

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

pdf

Pages

5

Uploaded by MasterMask4814

Report
2022 JUNE 30 LLB2220/LLB 220, WG/SWS/SYD, Supplementary and Deferred, Autumn 2022 REMOTE Page 1 of 5 Faculty of Business and Law School of Law LLB2220 – Property Law LLB 220 – Property and Trusts A Wollongong / South Western Sydney / Sydney CBD Supplementary and Deferred Examination Paper Autumn 2022 – Remote Delivery Exam duration 3 hours Weighting 50 % Items permitted by examiner Open book Aids supplied Nil Directions to students 1. This paper contains THREE (3) questions. All 3 questions are to be answered. 2. The exam questions are worth 50 marks in total. Question 1 is worth 15 marks. Question 2 is worth 15 marks. Question 3 is worth 20 marks. 3. Answer all questions in ONE FILE. Make sure you clearly identify each question in your answer file. 4. Please name the file with the subject number, e.g. “LLB2220 Final Exam 2022.” A centralised phone number has been established for students to call if you have any issues during the exam. Staff from the Exams team will respond to the calls and escalate them to the Subject Coordinator as appropriate. If you have any issues that impact your ability to complete the exam, please call the Exam Support Hotline on 02 4221 3000 . If you are unable to get through to that number for any reason, send an email to the Subject Coordinator for the exam you are sitting as soon as possible. This exam paper MUST NOT be shared or distributed in any way
2022 JUNE 30 LLB2220/LLB 220, WG/SWS/SYD, Supplementary and Deferred, Autumn 2022 REMOTE Page 2 of 5 Question 1 (15 marks) Bobby is the registered proprietor of a restaurant which is situated upon Torrens title land in Sydney, NSW (‘the restaurant’) . Bobby has a mortgage over the restaurant which is registered on the folio for the restaurant within the Torrens title register. The mortgagee is Shiny Bank. One of the terms of the mortgage provides that Bobby must make monthly repayments and pay interest on the loan on the first day of each month. The mortgage agreement states that if Bobby defaults on any of the terms of the mortgage agreement, Shiny Bank can exercise its power of sale after providing 14 days’ notice to rectify the default. For the past five months Bobby has been having a dispute with his head chef, Eugene, over a new menu that Eugene has introduced and also in relation to Eugene ’s inability to keep the kitchen of the restaurant clean. Customers do not like the new menu and a number of customers have posted on social media that they have noticed the kitchen at the restaurant is kept in an untidy and dirty state. As a result of the new menu and social media postings, the restaurant has lost a lot of business and Bobby has been struggling to pay the mortgage payments. Bobby has failed to pay the mortgage and interest repayments that were due on the first day of the months of May, June and July 2022. On 2 July 2022 Shiny Bank served Bobby with a notice stating that if he did not make the specified outstanding payments within 14 days, the bank would exercise its power of sale. Bobby telephoned the bank and told the bank officer that he did not think the bank had given him enough notice to try to make the outstanding repayments given the financial difficulties he was facing. The bank officer told Bobby that he had been given sufficient notice in accordance with the mortgage agreement. Bobby did not make any further payments as he was unable to raise any further funds. Bobby currently owes $3 million on the mortgage, including interest. On 6 July 2022, the bank retained a real estate agent to sell the restaurant. The real estate agent had three different valuers provide valuations in relation to the restaurant. The valuations ranged between $5.3 million and $5.5 million. The real estate agent advertised the restaurant for auction by placing an advertisement in a local Sydney newspaper and by placing a “For Auction ” advertisement sign on the noticeboard at the supermarket across the road from the restaurant. The auction was due to be held on 17 July 2022. By 16 July 2022 (the day before the auction) there were only two registered bidders. However, Eugene, who was annoyed with Bobby over their dispute in relation to the restaurant, made an offer to purchase the restaurant for $4.5 million on 16 July 2022. The real estate agent advised the bank that a higher price may be obtained at auction. Nonetheless, the bank accepted Eugene ’s off er to purchase the property on 16 July 2022. A contract for sale of the restaurant was entered into between Eugene and the Bank on 17 July 2022, but the sale has not yet settled. Bobby has come to you for advice. Advise Bobby: (a) As to the validity of Shiny Bank’s notice of intention to exercise the power of sale in relation to the restaurant and whether the power of sale was properly exercised. ( 12 marks ) (b) Assuming that the power of sale was not properly exercised, what remedies Bobby may be able to seek. ( 3 marks )
2022 JUNE 30 LLB2220/LLB 220, WG/SWS/SYD, Supplementary and Deferred, Autumn 2022 REMOTE Page 3 of 5 Question 2 (15 marks) Linda is a successful accountant. She has come to you for advice regarding some property law problems she is having. Linda owns a commercial office building known as Mint Towers that is located on old system title land in Liverpool, NSW. Mint Towers contains 10 levels with each level having a number of different office suites. Linda ’s accountancy firm occupies all of the offices on Level 10 of Mint Towers. In December 2020 Linda entered into an agreement with Dr Bentley by way of a deed. The agreement was titled as a ‘ Non-Exclusive Licence Agreement ’ (‘the agreement’) and granted Dr Bentley the use of Suite A on Level 6 of Mint Towers (‘Suite A’) for the purposes of running a doctor’s medical practice. The agreement stated that it commenced on 13 December 2020 and expires on 12 May 2025. The agreement also stated that Dr Bentley is required to pay Linda a licence fee of $5000 per month for the use of Suite A. Suite A consists of a single small office four metres wide by four metres long and a small waiting area with a receptionist’s desk. The agreement states that it did not confer Dr Bentley a right of exclusive occupation and that Linda may enter Suite A at any time of the day to use the suite (including the office) for the purposes of her accountancy firm if she wishes. Dr Bentley is a general practitioner and has been using Suite A as his doctor’s office since the agreement commenced. He works there daily and sees his patients in the office within Suite A. Linda has never used or entered Suite A for the purposes of her accountancy firm since the agreement with Dr Bentley commenced. Dr Bentley recently applied for a bank loan in order to upgrade to a new computer system for his medical practice that he runs from Suite A. However, the bank told Dr Bentley that they would only grant him a loan if he could confirm that he has a lease in relation to Suite A. Dr Bentley recently contacted Linda and asked her to write a letter confirming that the agreement is in fact a lease agreement. However, Linda has refused to write the letter, stating that their agreement is clearly a licence and not a lease. Dr Bentley has threatened to take Linda to court if she does not confirm that the agreement is a lease agreement and not a licence. Linda has come to you for advice regarding whether the agreement constitutes a lease. Linda also owns an office block known as Ivy House which is located on Torrens title land in Wollongong, NSW. In September 2020 Linda entered into a lease agreement with Harper in relation to Suite C of Ivy House (‘Suite C’) . The lease was registered. The lease provided that: 1. This lease commences on 24 September 2020 and is to run for a period of eight years. 2. The tenant is required to pay $10,000 rent each month, due on the 30 th day of each month. 3. The tenant must seek consent from the landlord in order to assign the lease. 4. Suite C must only be used for the purposes of a lawyer’s office. 5. The tenant is granted exclusive possession of Suite C. Harper is a lawyer who practices in banking and commercial law. In January 2022 Harper acted for a client in a high-profile banking law case that received significant media attention. As a result of the case, Harper became quite popular as a lawyer and took on a number of new clients. He decided to hire four new lawyers to work with him and decided that he needed to move to bigger offices elsewhere. On 16 June 2022 Harper wrote to Linda and asked Linda for her consent to assign his lease in relation to Suite C to Bailey. Bailey is a prominent local lawyer who practices in environmental law. On 18 June 2022 Linda refused to grant consent for Harper to assign the lease to Bailey. Linda told Harper that climate change is not real and that “ there is no way I am having one of those hippie tree hugging environmentalists working in my building ” . However, Linda has just found out that on 10 July 2022 Harper assigned the lease in relation to Suite C to Bailey. The assignment was registered. Linda is furious and has come to you for advice as to whether the assignment of the lease is valid. Advise Linda as to the following: (a) Whether the agreement in relation to Suite A in Mint Towers is a lease. ( 10 marks ) (b) Whether the assignment of the lease in relation to Suite C in Ivy House by Harper to Bailey is valid ( 5 marks ).
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help