Law Sessions With Jennifer Housen’s Podcast

Mastering Land Law Questions: A Strategic Approach to Examination Excellence

Subscriber Episode • • Jennifer Housen • Season 11 • Episode 1

Share episode

Subscriber-only episode

Land Law examination success requires understanding the disconnect between what examiners ask and what students actually answer, along with developing effective time management strategies. The session provides practical approaches to structuring essay and problem questions while avoiding common pitfalls that prevent even knowledgeable students from achieving good results.

• Two biggest criticisms of law students: not answering the actual exam question and poor time management
• Examiners pose specific legal questions while students often write everything they know about a topic
• Time management means knowing what 35 minutes of writing looks and feels like before the exam
• Essay questions require identifying specific issues, not just recognising the general topic area
• Problem questions should follow IRAC structure (Issues, Rules, Application, Conclusion)
• Write formally and directly address the question asked - if asked to "advise X," begin with "In advising X"
• Practice writing at least one full exam answer under timed conditions
• Treat questions as legal hypotheses requiring dissection, not visualisation of real-life scenarios

In your preparation, ensure you write out at least one answer to a past exam question under timed conditions. If you're sitting a three-hour exam with four questions, practice writing within 35 minutes per question.


💡⚖️ Let’s learn the law together—one session at a time!

Speaker 1:

Music, music, music, music, music, music, music, music, music, music, music, music, music, music. Welcome to Law Sessions. I am Jennifer Howzen. This Law Session on answering Land Law questions will be one of the most important Law Session that you will listen to, because in this session, you will understand how to approach the exam questions, which are, of course, the whole point of the lectures. Now, this session, of course, assumes knowledge of the syllabus. It also assumes that you have either watched all the law session videos in this series, meaning the Land Law series, or you have completed your reading, because the entire session is focused on how you approach and answer Land Law questions. It is not a teaching session. Now, then, in the first of the four segments, what I will do is to consider the general approach to answering landlord questions, and in the next three segments, what I'll do is to dissect a landlord question in each separate segment. Now, the three areas that I've chosen for us to consider a question are easements, leases and co-ownership, as it relates to severance. Now, the questions I will use are real questions taken from the University of London external LLB programme. Over the last 10 years, I want to say to you that I have assisted hundreds of persons with examination preparation for their LLB exams, the New York Bar exams and also law school entrance exams. Now, having completed my own LLB and postgraduate diploma in law in the UK and having sat the New York Bar exams and completed my professional qualification in the Caribbean, assignment and exam writing is something I like to think I am well familiar with, so I would suggest that you are more or less in fairly safe hands Now. It doesn't matter how many hours you have spent studying and revising. The law examiner doesn't know anything about that. He doesn't know the time when you have to get up at two in the morning. He doesn't know when you've hardly had any sleep. He meets you, as it were, one time for three hours on paper, and you have to make it count. Now, the two biggest criticisms of law exam candidates are one that they do not answer the exam question and two poor time management. Now, as it relates to not answering the exam question, examiners say that the law students do not answer the exam question. The law student will, of course, disagree. As far as the law student is concerned, they have just come out of a three hour exam and they wrote for three hours, so they must have answered the question. Well, you, the law student, as well as the law examiner, are both right. The law student did answer the question. He or she just didn't answer the question that the examiner asked. Now, what do I mean by that? Well, there's the exam question asked by the examiner and there's the exam question which was answered by the examinee. Now there is a book called Men Are From Mars and Women Are From Venus and the title, frankly, might as well be that law examiners are from Mars and law examinees are from Venus.

Speaker 1:

Because if I had a dollar for every time, a law student would say to me I don't know how I failed land law. I felt really good after going into the exam. All of the topics that I prepared for were on the exam and, as a matter of fact, I actually thought I failed tort and instead I got a 60 on tort and I failed land. Well, if I had a dollar for every time, I hear that I would be a very rich woman indeed. The point is, an examiner will ask a question such as what does it mean for someone to be in adverse possession of land and in what circumstances does time stop running in favor of an adverse possessor? What a law student actually sees in front of him like a red rag to a bull, is what is everything I can possibly remember in the area of adverse possession and write it all down in 45 minutes. And then they answer that question and briefly, very briefly, mention the meaning of adverse possession and then sometimes completely ignore that part of the question about time. Stop running Now. I must admit that sometimes the exam question is written as if the exam writer is living in a parallel universe in his own head. But if you stop and read the question carefully, it does actually make sense. What you need to do is to consider the question as a legal hypothesis and dissect it for legal principles. Do not try to visualize the characters as actual persons and the situations as something in real life. It is not. It is a hypothetical situation, fictionally constructed or possibly based on a case or something loosely to encapsulate legal principles for you to identify in context and answer.

Speaker 1:

Now, as to the second criticism of poor time management, I want you to understand the significance of poor time management. If you have four questions to complete in three hours and you decide to do two to the best of your ability, you really don't need to be a mathematician to realize that even if you wrote each of those two answers worthy of a law lord, you simply cannot get more than 25% of the entirety of the marks for each question. So you cannot get more than 50% of the total available marks. So by doing two questions, you are already setting yourself up to get a reduced percentage of the available marks. So if you can address these two main criticisms, you are more than halfway there.

Speaker 1:

Now, starting with the latter first, how do you deal with time management? Well, one of the biggest mistakes I see that law students make is to spend hours and hours reading. I will say this I have never met the law student who didn't have the knowledge and passed, but I've certainly met the law student who has had the knowledge and failed, because the knowledge alone is not enough. The primary piece of advice that I will give you about time management is this If the first time you are writing under timed conditions is in the exam, you have already failed yourself, because in your preparation, what you need to do is to ensure that you write out in full at least one question to a past exam. Write out at least one answer sorry to a past exam question from your university and write at least one.

Speaker 1:

Under timed conditions. If you are sitting on examination of three hours in which you are required to write four questions, then you have 45 minutes per question, but that does not translate as 45 minutes writing time. You will need about five minutes to prepare the question and another five minutes or so to reread the question. So you effectively have 35 minutes writing time. The difficulty sometimes is that persons do not reread and they make a slight error which, had they reread the answer, they would have seen, which might have changed the nature of the answer. What you need to do is, before you go into the exam, you should know exactly what 35 minutes of your writing looks and feels like. So some examinees will ask how much should I write? You need to be able to write 35 minutes worth of an answer. So if you practice and you know a topic fairly well and you're extremely familiar with it, and if you then prepare and you can write six sides of an A4 sheet, then you know that it is the very best that you can do in respect of such a question, and so you know it's the best you can do in the exam. So you ensure that in the exam, after you've written, say, four sheets on your best topic, you keep an eye on the clock to make sure you are on target time-wise. Now that's your time management.

Speaker 1:

What about your question answering ability? Well, first, if it is an essay question, make sure you read it at least twice. Then consider what is the examiner asking me. Do not just see an adverse possession question. Look at what exactly about adverse possession the examiner is asking. Then you answer the question logically, meaning you start with a path, then a definition, or it can be a definition, then path. What I mean by the path is where are you going? Are you agreeing with the statement? Is it that the statement is a half truth or something like that? Then you set out your arguments in favor of the position advanced, then any arguments against your position and then you conclude. Of course, if you are arguing in favor of a position, then you certainly want to make sure that you've given more arguments than the converse position. So if you're going to give, say, three points or three paragraphs in support of your stance, then you also want to give one from the other viewpoint. But you discount that argument by saying why that argument, for example, is a tenuous argument. Now, one of the ways to stay focused in an exam question, of course, is to keep referring to the words used in the question. Then it means that you're answering that question, the question asked by the examiner, not just an adverse possession question, where you write generally everything you know about that question or that area In an essay.

Speaker 1:

Read the question carefully to make sure you understand what is required. Look carefully at the keywords and phrases, which indicate the sort of answer you are expected to give. Very few essays, if any at all, will require merely a factual description of what the law is. So the examiner would never ask you what is adverse possession. He will make a statement that is possibly a half-truth and you've got to approach it. You will almost always be required to analyze the factual content in some way, usually highlighting any problems or gaps in the law and suggesting possible reforms, if there are reforms in that area. If a question asks you to analyze whether the land registration system has now made the position better in relation to adverse possession, you should not write everything you know about adverse possession and finish with one sentence saying the system is now better. Instead, you should select your relevant material and your own answer should be targeted at answering whether or not the system is better.

Speaker 1:

Now, what about problem questions? These will usually consist of facts and usually it has a direction, such as advise. X and X will usually be one of the parties in the fact pattern. The aim will be to analyze the facts to identify the legal issues and analyze the law to find the relevant legal rules. Next will be the application of the law to the issues and then reaching a conclusion. Now IRAC is a well-known law student acronym and it means issues, rule application and conclusion. Application and conclusion. Now there are other acronyms that you will hear about, for example CLEO, which is more or less the same claim law evaluation outcome. It means that the structure of your answer should display that you've identified what the issue is. For example, is it an easement question what the law is, and then you analyze it as against the fact. So this is general advice on how to approach special types of exercises in relation to problem questions. So law students have been subjected to this from time immemorial. So, whether in seminars or exams, you will no doubt come upon the problem type question.

Speaker 1:

You can identify these, as I say, because typically they begin with a statement of a hypothetical and sometimes faintly improbable facts, which is why I say don't watch the facts. And then it will usually end by asking you to advise one of the parties, although sometimes you'll be asked to discuss the case or discuss the liability of one of the parties. Again, don't visualize the facts as being real. Rather, focus on the legal rules and principles which arise. The writing is critical. Answer the question asked. Legal writing is about formality. If I ask you what is your name, the answer is not Jennifer. It is my name is Jennifer Housen. As such, when the examiner gives you a set of facts and at the end say advise X, the answer is not. Elise is an interest in land, et cetera, et cetera. No, that is the answer to the question. What is Elise? Even if the question is about Elise, if the question asks you advise X, the correct answer is in advising X, et cetera, et cetera.

Speaker 1:

There is an American TV program called Jeopardy and the idea behind it is you are given an answer and you have to phrase the question.

Speaker 1:

So, for example, the host of the quiz show says Queen Elizabeth II and the contestant says who is the Queen of England? Well, your answers should reflect something along that line. So when you read the first line without knowing what the question says, someone should be able to look at your answer and know the question. So if, in relation to my example on X, if my answer was in advising X, the status of A, b and C's occupation will be considered to determine whether or not their occupation is binding on X as the purchase of Black Acre, then in less than two minutes or in less than a two-line introduction, you have become aware of X and A and B and C and know that they're apparently occupying Blackacre, which X has purchased. Be succinct, be precise and write in the third person. Now I will take a short break and when we come back I will review three questions in each segment and show you how you approach the exam's questions in order to write. We'll start with easements, but we will take a short break first.