NCA Property Law common mistakes
NCA Property Law · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Treating a lease, licence, or easement as interchangeable when asked to classify an occupation right, and answering from the label the parties used rather than from the substance of the arrangement.
Candidates memorise definitions in isolation and then pattern-match on words like 'rent' or 'agreement', forgetting that exclusive possession and a defined term, not terminology, determine whether a lease exists.
What to do instead
Before answering, run a fixed three-part test in writing: (1) does the occupier have exclusive possession, (2) for a certain term, (3) at a rent or other consideration? Then state which element fails or is satisfied and classify from that, ignoring the parties' chosen label.
Confusing registered and unregistered interests when advising on enforceability against a purchaser, and asserting that an unregistered interest binds a buyer simply because the buyer knew of it.
The registration regime creates a closed list of overriding interests, but candidates import general notice concepts from other jurisdictions or from contract law and assume knowledge equals enforceability.
What to do instead
Build a two-column checklist: interests that require registration to bind (and the entry needed), versus interests that override registration without entry. For each exam scenario, ask first whether the interest is on the closed list of overriding interests; only if it is not does notice become relevant.
Answering a priority dispute between competing interests by relying on the order in which the interests were created, without checking registration dates and the protection status of each interest.
Chronology is intuitive and candidates default to 'first in time' as a universal rule, overlooking that the registration system displaces it for registrable interests.
What to do instead
For every priority question, draw a timeline with two rows: creation date and registration or protection date. Apply the statutory priority rule first, and only fall back to first-in-time for interests outside the registration system or where the statute expressly preserves it.
Describing co-ownership by listing joint tenancy and tenancy in common but failing to apply the four unities or to explain whether severance has occurred on the given facts.
Candidates learn the categories as vocabulary rather than as tests, so they stop at naming the form of co-ownership instead of demonstrating the consequences for survivorship and shares.
What to do instead
For each co-ownership fact pattern, work through the four unities explicitly (time, title, interest, possession), state whether survivorship applies, then test severance methods one by one (unilateral alienation, mutual agreement, course of dealing, and any statutory method) and give the resulting shares.
Treating fixtures and chattels as a matter of who paid for or owns the item, rather than applying the degree and purpose of annexation tests.
Everyday intuition says the person who bought the item keeps it, and candidates skip the legal tests because the items in scenarios look mundane.
What to do instead
Apply two tests in order: degree of annexation (how firmly attached, can it be removed without damage) and purpose of annexation (was it attached to improve the land or to enjoy the item itself). State both, then conclude, and note any special rules for items such as trade fixtures or tenants' fittings.
Confusing the benefit and burden of easements and covenants, or asserting that a positive covenant to spend money runs with freehold land.
The terminology is symmetric and easy to invert under time pressure, and candidates mix up the equitable rules for covenants with the common law rules for easements.
What to do instead
Label every right as benefit or burden before analysis. For covenants, run separate tests for the burden (notice, intention, restrictive in nature, benefited land identified) and the benefit (annexation, assignment, or scheme), and state expressly that positive obligations generally do not run with freehold land.
Answering adverse possession questions with a single limitation period and omitting the requirement of intention to possess and the effect of a registered proprietor's response.
Candidates compress a multi-element doctrine into one number, and forget that factual possession and intention are separate limbs that each need evidence.
What to do instead
Structure the answer in three steps: factual possession (single and exclusive control), intention to possess (not necessarily an intention to own), and the running and interruption of time. Then address the registered land regime separately, including notice to the registered proprietor and the statutory response period.
Giving a conclusion on a mortgage or charge without identifying the remedy being tested, and mixing up the lender's power of sale, right to possession, and right to sue on the personal covenant.
Remedies are taught together and share facts, so candidates describe all of them generically instead of selecting the one the question asks about and its preconditions.
What to do instead
Name the remedy first, then list its statutory preconditions (default, notice, timing) and the borrower's protections. Where the question is open, list each remedy in a separate paragraph with its own trigger and limits, and state which is most likely on the facts.
Ignoring the Landlord and Tenant or leasehold covenants framework when a question involves assignment or subletting, and answering as if privity of contract alone decides liability.
Candidates carry over general contract privity and forget that leasehold covenants can run with the land through assignment, so liability shifts in ways contract law would not predict.
What to do instead
For each assignment scenario, draw the chain of parties and mark privity of estate versus privity of contract. Then apply the rules on which covenants touch and concern the land, and state who remains liable after assignment and for how long.
Writing a conclusion with no authority or statutory reference, or citing a case name without stating the principle it establishes.
Candidates run out of time and treat citations as decoration, or they memorise case names without the rule, so the reference adds nothing to the reasoning.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed sentence pattern: principle, then authority, then application to the facts. If the case name cannot be recalled with confidence, state the principle and the statute instead of guessing, and reserve the last few minutes to check that every conclusion has at least one supporting rule.