Legal easement exercised within the year before a disposition overrides (LRA 2002 Sch 3 para 3)
In 1990, when both plots were unregistered, the owner of Plot A, in Chester, England, granted the owner of Plot B by deed a perpetual right to run foul drainage through an underground pipe across Plot A. Plot A was later registered, but the easement has never been entered on its register. Waste from the house on Plot B has flowed through the pipe every day. In May 2026 Nadia bought Plot A for value and was registered as proprietor. The pipe is entirely underground, there are no manholes or other visible signs of it on Plot A, and Nadia did not know about it. She now wants to remove the pipe.
Which of the following best describes whether Nadia is bound by the drainage easement?
Choose one answer to see the reasoning.
Worked answer
Correct answer A: She is bound, because the legal easement had been exercised in the year ending with the day of the disposition to her.
THE RULE TO REMEMBER
A legal easement overrides a registered disposition unless unknown and not obvious on inspection, and that exception does not apply if the easement was exercised in the year before the disposition.
Legal easement exercised within the year before a disposition overrides (LRA 2002 Sch 3 para 3)
Under s.29 LRA 2002, Nadia's registered purchase for value takes subject to interests within Schedule 3. Para 3(1) makes a legal easement overriding, except one which at the time of the disposition was not within the purchaser's actual knowledge and would not have been obvious on a reasonably careful inspection. Nadia did not know of the pipe and it could not be seen, so the exception in para 3(1) would apply on its own. But para 3(2) provides that the exception does not apply if the person entitled proves that the easement has been exercised in the period of one year ending with the day of the disposition. The pipe has carried waste from Plot B every day, so the easement was exercised throughout that year. It was granted by deed before Plot A was registered, so it is a legal easement and the registration requirement for new express grants over registered land did not apply to it. It therefore overrides and binds Nadia.
Why B is wrong: Lack of knowledge and invisibility bring the para 3(1) exception into play, but para 3(2) disapplies it because the easement was used within the year.
Why C is wrong: A legal easement within Sch 3 para 3 overrides without any entry on the register.
Why D is wrong: Actual occupation is the test under para 2, not para 3; legal easements override under their own paragraph.
Why E is wrong: Section 27 applies to express grants out of a registered estate; this easement was granted in 1990 over unregistered land and is already legal.
A little more practice done.
Related questions
Legal leases of seven years or less as overriding interests (LRA 2002 Sch 3 para 1)
Which of the following best describes whether Callum is bound by Amara's lease?
Actual occupation: occupier who fails to disclose her interest on inquiry (LRA 2002 Sch 3 para 2(b))
Which of the following best describes Rosa's position against Imran?
Express easement over registered land operates at law only when registered (LRA 2002 s.27)
Which of the following best describes the status of Tom's right of way at present?
A GOOD HABIT, DELIVERED
Tomorrow's question.
In your inbox.
One free question a day, with the answer and reasoning.
No course pitches. Just your daily practice.