Monday 20 October 2025
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.
TODAY at 1pm – special session. Celebrating our new channel members – members only stream: click here for access.
Coffee Break! Join me this Wednesday at 1.30pm for our MCQ coffee break. I will be going through the SRA’s sample questions with you. Click here to access. Free for everyone!
This Week’s Question: A small business brings a claim in the County Court for £25,000 against a supplier for defective goods. The claim is allocated to the fast track. The case proceeds to trial, where the claimant succeeds and is awarded full damages. The claimant’s solicitor seeks to recover costs on the standard basis, arguing that the case involved complex technical evidence and several witness statements. How is the court most likely to deal with the claimant’s request for costs?
A. The court will award costs on the standard basis because the case involved unusual complexity for its value.
B. The court will award fixed recoverable costs in accordance with the CPR, regardless of complexity, unless there are exceptional circumstances.
C. The court will allow the solicitor to recover full costs because expert evidence automatically disapplies the FRC regime.
D. The court will transfer the case to the multi-track and assess costs in full because the damages exceeded £10,000.
E. The court will award no costs, as each party must bear its own expenses in fast-track claims.
Dig Deeper: Learn more the Fixed Recoverable Costs (FRC) regime, by watching this video
Exclusive Subscriber Freebies & Discounts:
1) NEW digital study planner for SQE1 prep! Create your own via https://glintiss.co.uk/study-planner/
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 15% off any of the Pro Plans of AI tutor LawDrills at https://www.lawdrills.com/
Last Week’s Question: A homeowner hires a builder to install a luxury swimming pool for £60,000. The contract specifies that the pool must be lined with a particular imported tile. The builder completes the pool but uses a cheaper local tile instead. The pool is fully functional and safe, and the market value of the property is only £1,000 less than if the correct tiles had been used. Replacing the tiles would require completely rebuilding the pool at a cost of £25,000. The homeowner insists on claiming the full cost of reconstruction.
What is the court most likely to award as damages?
A. The full £25,000 cost of replacing the tiles, because the builder breached a specific contractual term.
B. Nothing, because the builder acted in good faith and caused no significant loss in value.
C. The £1,000 difference in value, because the cost of cure would be wholly disproportionate to the loss suffered.
D. The average of the two figures, £13,000, as a reasonable compromise between cost and value.
E. The full contract price of £60,000, because the breach deprived the homeowner of the entire benefit of the bargain.
✅ Correct Answer: C The £1,000 difference in value, because the cost of cure would be wholly disproportionate to the loss suffered.
The aim of expectation damages is to put the claimant in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed properly (see Robinson v Harman (1848)). Courts choose between cost of cure and difference in value depending on proportionality and intention. In Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth [1996] AC 344, the House of Lords held that where the cost of cure is disproportionate to the benefit gained, damages should reflect loss of value or loss of amenity instead. Here, rebuilding the pool for aesthetic perfection would be unreasonable compared with the minor difference in market value.
Option A is wrong: not every breach justifies cost of cure if it’s economically wasteful.
Option B is wrong: good faith does not remove liability, but the loss is minimal.
Option D is wrong: damages are not assessed by averaging figures.
Option E is wrong: the breach did not deprive the homeowner of the entire contractual benefit.
This question tests FLK1: Contract Law, focusing on the measure of expectation loss and proportionality in cost of cure versus difference in value.
Thank you for subscribing and let me know how you are getting on in your preparation through our Facebook Group or 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