Monday 26 January 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. This is the web version of this newsletter.
And, it would mean a lot to me if you could tell your candidate friends about this newsletter. The way the world is going, if we face disruption in our usual online services, email will be the best way to support each other. So please tell people about this mailing!
NEW! You can now find text guides, concept summaries, FLK breakdowns and flashcards on Substack in a series of posts. Subscribe here, if you were looking forward to this type of resource, or gain access through the new ‘preppers’ membership level on YouTube.
This Week’s Question: A woman pushes a man during an argument outside a pub. The push causes the man to stumble backwards into the road, where he is struck by a passing car and suffers serious injuries. The woman did not intend to cause serious injury but foresaw that the push might cause the man to lose his balance. The driver of the car was driving at a lawful speed and could not reasonably avoid the collision.
Which of the following best describes the woman’s criminal liability?
- She is not criminally liable because the injury was caused by the actions of the driver, which break the chain of causation.
- She is liable for assault occasioning actual bodily harm because she intended to apply unlawful force.
- She is liable for inflicting grievous bodily harm because she foresaw the risk of some physical injury and her act was an operating and substantial cause.
- She is liable only for common assault because she did not intend or foresee serious injury.
- She is not criminally liable because the harm suffered was too remote from her actions.
Dig Deeper: Learn more about FLK2 Criminal Liability, on https://youtu.be/wp0p4Y8WeGk
Exclusive Subscriber Freebies & Discounts:
1) Try my FREE MCQ Test Bank! This newsletter’s questions in a test bank you can attempt! Currently with 30 questions, and more added all the time. Try on https://glintiss.co.uk/yannis-mcqs/
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/
4) Preparing for the July sitting of SQE1? Try my free Study Planner on https://glintiss.co.uk/study-planner/
Last Week’s Question: A woman owns a small farm. Over many years, she repeatedly tells her nephew that “one day this will all be yours.” Relying on these assurances, the nephew works on the farm full-time for low pay, turns down other employment, and spends his own money improving the farmhouse. The woman later falls out with the nephew and leaves the farm to a charity in her will. After her death, the nephew brings a claim. Which statement best reflects how the court is most likely to resolve the claim?
A. The nephew will succeed only if he proves a binding contract supported by consideration.
B. The nephew will succeed automatically and receive the farm because reliance always fixes the remedy.
C. The nephew may succeed if assurance, reliance, and detriment are established, with the remedy tailored to avoid unconscionability.
D. The nephew cannot succeed because informal assurances relating to land are void without writing.
E. The nephew can succeed only if the woman intended to create a trust over the land.
✅ Correct Answer: C The nephew may succeed if assurance, reliance, and detriment are established, with the remedy tailored to avoid unconscionability. Feedback: Proprietary estoppel arises where there is a clear assurance relating to rights in land, the claimant relies on that assurance, and the claimant suffers detriment, such that it would be unconscionable for the promisor to go back on it. This was confirmed in Thorner v Major [2009] UKHL 18, where assurances need not be express but must be sufficiently clear in context. If established, the court has a discretionary remedy, aimed at satisfying the equity in a proportionate way, not necessarily giving effect to the full expectation (see Jennings v Rice [2002] EWCA Civ 159).
- Option A is wrong: proprietary estoppel operates independently of contract.
- Option B is wrong: the remedy is not automatic or fixed.
- Option D is wrong: proprietary estoppel is an exception to formality requirements for land.
- Option E is wrong: intention to create a trust is not required.
This question tests FLK2: Land Law / Equity and Trusts, focusing on the elements, evidential threshold, and remedial discretion in proprietary estoppel — a recognised area of SQE1 difficulty.
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