2022 LLB301 Exam Feedback This exam was timed and online. It was under circumstances that students had not faced before. I was aware that having to complete and upload the answers within the set time would have created an added stress for students. However, it was good to note that students in this year generally did well compared to previous years. The average mark was higher than in previous years, and there were higher numbers of Distinctions and High Distinctions than previous years. Unfortunately, there was an error in question 2b. The question stated: 8advise Denise on her chances of having the easement extinguished under s180 of the PLA'. Extinguishment occurs under s181, not 180. Most students noted the error and answered it in relation to s181. It is unfortunate that there was an error, the exam gets checked by three different people, but it still was not identified. As a result of the error, question 2b was marked generously. The marks for the exam, especially those questions after Question 2b, were closely monitored to see if students' performances were affected by the error. However, as noted, overall marks were actually higher than in previous years, and this would have been the case without the generosity in marking question 2b. Following is feedback for each individual question. Question 1a The lease is less than 3 years. Therefore, it is a short lease: Schedule 2, LTA, and a legal interest, despite not being registered: s185(1)(b) LTA. The lease was assigned with Jan's consent. The assignment was in writing, so was effective under PLA ss11, 199 PLA. No tripartite deal was signed, so Jan and Kiki are not in privity of contract. However, they are in privity of estate. Therefore, all covenants that touch and concern the land will be enforceable between them (Swift, s117/8 PLA) Quiet enjoyment and non-derogation from grant affect the lessee's use and enjoyment of the property, (Swift), and therefore these are covenants that touch and concern the land. Parties in privity of estate may sue each other under these obligations. Many students did not address these issues regarding the status of the lease pre- and post-assignment, and the applicability of these covenants post-assignment. This is a large oversight, and limited the marks that a student could receive for this question. Another important error that was made was to refer to obligations flowing from s62 LTA. But the leases were not registered. Therefore, s62 had no relevance. Another error that was made was to determine Jan's liability based on whether nuisance touched and concerned the land, rather than whether the obligations of quiet enjoyment/non-derogation from grant touched and concerned the land. Another error was that many students stated that we didn't know whether there was a tri-partite deed between the parties, or whether the assignment was in writing or not, despite those both being clearly stated in the question. This gave the impression of a fixed answer being followed, rather than answering the question as given. Students did