Monday 10 November 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 local council grants a licence for a late-night music festival in a residential area. The event is approved despite repeated noise complaints from residents and police concerns about public safety. The council’s own environmental health officers advised against the licence, but the licensing committee said it wanted to “boost tourism and local spending.” A residents’ association seeks to challenge the decision by judicial review, claiming the council acted unreasonably. Which statement best reflects the court’s likely approach?
A. The court will substitute its own view of the merits if it considers the decision economically unwise.
B. The court will quash the decision if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have made it.
C. The court will refuse to intervene because decisions involving public interest are not justiciable.
D. The court will only intervene if the council acted in bad faith or with improper motive.
E. The court will allow the challenge automatically because the council ignored expert advice.
Dig Deeper: Update your knowledge of the English Legal System for the 2026 exams, by watching this video
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 woman was walking past a building site operated by a construction company when a heavy tool fell from the scaffolding and struck her shoulder. The site had safety nets installed, but they had been removed temporarily while materials were being lifted. The company argues that the injury was an unfortunate accident and that all reasonable precautions had been taken. The woman sues for damages in negligence.
Which statement best describes the legal position?
A. The company is liable, because it owed a duty of care and failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent foreseeable harm.
B. The company is not liable, because it did not intend to cause injury and the accident was unavoidable.
C. The company is not liable, because an independent contractor was responsible for the scaffolding work.
D. The company is liable only if the woman can prove that it breached statutory safety regulations.
E. The company is not liable, because she was not on the construction site and so was outside the duty of care.
✅ Correct Answer: A The company is liable, because it owed a duty of care and failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent foreseeable harm. Feedback: To succeed in negligence, the claimant must show: (1) a duty of care, (2) breach, (3) causation, and (4) damage not too remote (Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562). Construction companies owe a duty to take reasonable care to protect people near the site from foreseeable risks of injury. Temporarily removing safety nets increased foreseeable risk — this constitutes a breach of duty.
- Option B is wrong: absence of intent is irrelevant; negligence depends on failure to meet the standard of care.
- Option C is wrong: employers are generally vicariously liable for negligent acts of contractors under their control unless the work was truly independent.
- Option D is wrong: breach of statutory duty is not required for negligence.
- Option E is wrong: the duty extends to neighbours foreseeably affected by the defendant’s acts or omissions.
This question tests FLK2: Tort Law, focusing on duty and breach in negligence and the standard of care expected in inherently dangerous activities like construction.
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