Monday 15 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 last MCQ coffee break of the year! I will be going through the SRA’s sample questions with you. Click here to access. Free for everyone!
This Week’s Question: A company issues a claim in the High Court alleging that a former director has misappropriated substantial company funds. The company has evidence that the director has begun transferring assets to overseas accounts and is planning to relocate abroad within days. The company wishes to prevent the dissipation of assets before trial and asks its solicitor about immediate court action.
Which option best explains the legal basis on which the court may grant the relief sought?
A. The court will grant the order automatically because allegations of fraud justify immediate asset preservation.
B. The court may grant the order if there is a good arguable case and a real risk of dissipation of assets.
C. The court may grant the order only if the claimant proves the claim on the balance of probabilities.
D. The court may grant the order only after the defence has been filed and disclosure completed.
E. The court will refuse the order because interim remedies cannot restrict dealings with personal property.
Dig Deeper: Learn more about FLK1 Dispute Resolution, on https://youtu.be/2syq_2ToIBQ
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 man visits a privately owned art gallery open to the public. A temporary exhibition is being installed, and signs at the entrance state: “Areas under refurbishment – please follow marked walkways.” The man ignores the marked route and cuts through a partially lit side corridor to take a shortcut. An independent contractor working for the gallery has left a loose electrical cable trailing across that corridor. The man trips over the cable and suffers a serious ankle injury. The gallery argues that it took reasonable steps to ensure visitor safety and that the man’s own behaviour contributed to the accident. If the man brings a claim against the gallery, how is a court most likely to assess liability?
A. The gallery is fully liable because lawful visitors cannot be contributorily negligent under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957.
B. The gallery is not liable because a contractor created the hazard, and the man chose to ignore the designated route.
C. The gallery is liable, but damages may be reduced for contributory negligence.
D. The gallery is not liable because the posted warning sign automatically discharges the occupier’s duty.
E. The gallery is fully liable because warnings cannot affect the duty owed under the 1957 Act.
✅ Correct Answer: C The gallery is liable, but damages may be reduced for contributory negligence. Feedback: Under s.2(2) Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, occupiers owe lawful visitors a duty to take reasonable care to ensure they are reasonably safe on the premises. The independent contractor defence under s.2(4)(b) OLA 1957 is only available where (1) it was reasonable to entrust the work, (2) the contractor was competent, and (3) reasonable checks were made. A trailing cable in a public-access corridor is a straightforward hazard and suggests the occupier did not ensure reasonable safety. However, the visitor ignored clear signage and entered an unlit, restricted corridor. This behaviour may amount to contributory negligence under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, leading to a reduction in damages proportionate to the claimant’s share of responsibility (see Froom v Butcher principles on apportionment). Therefore, the most accurate analysis is: The gallery remains liable as occupier; The claimant bears some fault, so damages are likely to be reduced.
Incorrect options explained:
- A is wrong: lawful visitors can be contributorily negligent.
- B is wrong: contractor involvement does not automatically remove the occupier’s duty.
- D is wrong: warnings help but rarely automatically discharge the duty—especially where the hazard is foreseeable and easily discoverable.
- E is wrong: warnings can affect the duty; they are expressly recognised under s.2(4)(a), but they are not an absolute shield.
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