Monday 2 November 2026
Your weekly SQE Prep Quiz has arrived
Dear Subscriber,
Hope you had a great weekend. Please see below for the question, the answer to the previous question and associated resources. You can view a web version of this newsletter by clicking here.
Livestream! Join me live this Wednesday at 1pm for FLK2 Solicitor Accounts and Ethics MCQs
NOVEMBER SUPER SESSION: I will be holding another live SQE Super Session on 21 November. 30 Places available upon application. If you would like to join, email me on events@glintiss.co.uk . Further info on events.dryannis.co.uk
This Week’s Question: An SRA-regulated firm conducts a review of client money remaining after completed conveyancing matters. It identifies three balances: £210 belonging to a client whose current bank details have been verified; £500 belonging to a former client who cannot be traced despite extensive, documented enquiries; and £680 belonging to another former client who also cannot be located despite reasonable tracing efforts. All three matters concluded more than three years ago, and there is no continuing reason to retain the funds. A partner proposes donating the unclaimed balances to charity, deducting £40 in tracing expenses from the £500 balance, and splitting the £680 balance into two smaller charitable payments to avoid seeking SRA approval. Which of the following best describes how the firm should deal with these balances?
A. The firm may donate both unclaimed balances without authorisation because reasonable tracing efforts have failed, but must return the £210 directly to its owner.
B. The firm should return the £210, donate £460 after deducting tracing expenses from the £500 balance, and seek SRA approval before withdrawing the £680.
C. The firm should return the £210 and may donate the £500 and £680 balances without authorisation, provided the latter is divided into two separate payments.
D. The firm should return the £210 promptly, may donate the full £500 subject to prescribed conditions, and must obtain prior written SRA authorisation for the £680.
E. The firm should return the £210 but must obtain prior written SRA authorisation before donating either residual balance, regardless of the amounts involved.
Dig Deeper: Want to revise Solicitor Accounts in a calm and relaxing way? Watch my “sleep revision” video on https://youtu.be/ufUfk1bHVWU
Exclusive Subscriber Offers:
1) Missed one of my Super Sessions? Get the Digital Packs here, and don’t forget, YT Prepper and Substack members get £5 off (contact me for the discount code).
2) Use code “REVSQE10” for 10% off all ReviseSQE products (including bundles) and free p&p for printed resources when purchasing directly at their shop.
3) Use code “IOANNIS” to get 10% off any plan on Law Drills at https://www.practiceworks.io/lawdrills/
Last Week’s Question: A woman witnesses a serious road accident caused by a delivery driver’s negligent driving. Her husband is struck by the vehicle and suffers severe injuries. The woman is standing approximately 30 metres away and sees the collision directly. She immediately runs to her husband and remains with him until the ambulance arrives. Although he survives, she subsequently develops a medically recognised post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The driver’s employer accepts that the driver was negligent and that the woman suffered a genuine psychiatric illness. However, it argues that she cannot recover damages because she was not physically endangered and did not suffer any physical injury. Which of the following best describes the woman’s potential claim?
A. She cannot recover because psychiatric injury is compensable in negligence only where the claimant was personally exposed to physical danger.
B. She can recover automatically because witnessing serious injury to a spouse establishes liability without requiring any further conditions.
C. She may recover as a secondary victim because she directly witnessed the accident, had a close relationship with the injured person and suffered a recognised psychiatric illness.
D. She cannot recover because the law requires the person injured in the accident to have died before a secondary victim may claim damages.
E. She may recover only if she proves that the driver specifically foresaw psychiatric injury to her as an individual.
Correct answer: C. The leading authority is Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310, which establishes the control mechanisms governing claims by secondary victims for psychiatric injury. A secondary victim must ordinarily establish a close tie of love and affection with the primary victim, proximity in time and space to the accident or its immediate aftermath, direct perception through their own senses, and psychiatric injury caused by a sudden shocking event. Psychiatric injury must also be reasonably foreseeable in a person of ordinary fortitude. The Supreme Court’s decision in Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust [2024] UKSC 1 reaffirmed the importance of witnessing an accident (or its immediate aftermath), distinguishing such cases from witnessing a later medical crisis caused by earlier negligence.
A is wrong because secondary victims need not themselves have been exposed to physical danger. The law permits recovery for recognised psychiatric illness where the relevant control mechanisms are satisfied.
B is wrong because marriage establishes a presumed close tie of love and affection, but it does not automatically establish liability. The claimant must also satisfy the other requirements relating to proximity, perception, psychiatric injury and foreseeability.
C is correct because the woman directly witnessed the collision, was physically close to the accident, had a presumed close tie of love and affection with her husband and developed medically recognised PTSD. Provided psychiatric injury was reasonably foreseeable in a person of ordinary fortitude, she is likely to satisfy the requirements for recovery as a secondary victim.
D is wrong because the primary victim does not have to die. Secondary victim claims may arise where the primary victim survives but suffers serious injury.
E is wrong because the defendant does not need to foresee psychiatric injury to this particular woman individually. The relevant question is whether psychiatric injury was reasonably foreseeable in a person of ordinary fortitude in her circumstances.
SQE1 examination point: The woman is a secondary victim, not a primary victim, because she was not personally endangered. The crucial distinction is that witnessing an accident involving a close relative can establish liability for recognised psychiatric injury, provided the secondary-victim requirements are satisfied. In Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust [2024] UKSC 1, the Supreme Court also clarified that there is no separate requirement to prove a sudden shock to the nervous system; the central issue is whether the recognised psychiatric illness was caused by witnessing the accident or its immediate aftermath.
Thank you for subscribing and let me know how you are getting on in your preparation on Reddit! Feel free to forward this email to anyone you think will benefit.
If you wish to unsubscribe: You can stop receiving the newsletter at any time by emailing us at newsletter@glintiss.co.uk with ‘unsubscribe’ as the subject. We will promptly remove your email address from our mailing list. Thank you for being with us.
You will hear from me again soon.
All the best
Dr Ioannis (Yannis) Glinavos
Leave a Reply