Monday 1 December 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. This is the web version of this newsletter.
Coffee Break! Join me this Wednesday at 1pm 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 solicitor in a small firm acts for both a landlord and a tenant in negotiating the grant of a commercial lease. Both clients have agreed in writing that they are content for the same solicitor to act for them, as the transaction appears straightforward. During negotiations, however, a dispute arises about the rent review clause. The solicitor realises that continuing to act for both may place her in breach of her professional obligations. What should the solicitor do to comply with the SRA Code of Conduct?
A. Continue to act for both clients because they gave informed consent at the outset.
B. Cease to act for one client only and continue to represent the other to completion.
C. Cease acting for both clients immediately because an actual conflict of interest has arisen.
D. Continue acting for both clients but advise them to seek independent financial advice.
E. Proceed with the transaction but record the conflict in the firm’s compliance file for audit purposes.
Dig Deeper: Can’t get your head around the FLK? Watch these short explainer videos https://youtu.be/0CUsfC9iJ0E for FLK1 and https://youtu.be/78obAhTZYgQ for FLK2.
Exclusive Subscriber Freebies & Discounts:
1) 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 company sues its former finance manager in the civil courts, alleging that he fraudulently transferred company funds into his personal account. The manager denies wrongdoing and claims that any payments were authorised bonuses. The company’s solicitor explains that fraud is a serious allegation requiring strong evidence. The manager’s counsel argues that the company must prove the case “beyond reasonable doubt” because of the seriousness of the accusation. Which statement best reflects the correct legal position?
A. The company must prove the allegation beyond reasonable doubt, as fraud involves criminal conduct.
B. The company must prove the allegation on the balance of probabilities, but stronger evidence may be required in practice because of the gravity of the claim.
C. The company must prove the allegation to a “clear and convincing” standard, midway between civil and criminal proof.
D. The company must prove the allegation beyond reasonable doubt unless the manager has already been acquitted in criminal proceedings.
E. The company must prove only that there is some evidence suggesting dishonesty, as fraud is presumed if funds are missing.
✅ Correct Answer: B The company must prove the allegation on the balance of probabilities, but stronger evidence may be required in practice because of the gravity of the claim. Feedback: In civil proceedings, the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities, regardless of the seriousness of the allegation — see Re H (Minors) (Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) [1996] AC 563 and Re B (Children) [2008] UKHL 35. However, the inherent probability of fraud means the court will look for stronger, more cogent evidence before being satisfied that the civil standard is met (see also Hornal v Neuberger Products Ltd [1957] 1 QB 247).
- Option A is wrong: “beyond reasonable doubt” applies only in criminal proceedings.
- Option C is wrong: there is no intermediate standard; the balance of probabilities applies to all civil cases.
- Option D is wrong: prior acquittal is irrelevant to the civil standard.
- Option E is wrong: there is no presumption of fraud merely because money is unaccounted for — it must still be proved.
This question tests FLK1: Dispute Resolution / Civil Litigation, focusing on the distinction between civil and criminal standards of proof and the approach to serious allegations such as fraud.
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