Monday 16 February 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.
Livestreams coming up! Join me Wednesday at 1pm live for our MCQ workshop. Check the lives tab for the next available stream. This week’s stream is for channel members, going through the SRA’s FLK1 sample questions.
This Week’s Question: A woman executes a valid will leaving “£200,000 to my friend”. Before executing the will, she tells the friend that the money is to be held on trust for a named charity. The friend orally agrees. The will itself makes no reference to any trust.
After the woman’s death, the friend claims the money absolutely and denies any trust exists. The charity brings a claim.
Which statement best reflects the likely legal position?
A. The gift fails because the trust was not evidenced in writing.
B. The gift takes effect absolutely because the will contains no trust terms.
C. The friend holds the money on a fully secret trust for the charity.
D. The trust fails because it was not communicated after execution of the will.
E. The trust is invalid because the Wills Act formalities were not satisfied.
Dig Deeper: Learn more about FLK2 Wills & Estates, on https://youtu.be/yFhJ4uWLI_c
Exclusive Subscriber Freebies & Discounts:
1) Try my FREE MCQ Test Bank! This newsletter’s questions in a test bank you can attempt! Currently with 40 questions, with 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/
5) Find Study 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.
Last Week’s Question: A firm of solicitors acts for a company in the sale of a commercial property. On completion, the firm receives £240,000 from the buyer’s solicitors. Of this sum, £220,000 represents the purchase price due to the client, £15,000 represents the firm’s agreed fees (which have not yet been billed), and £5,000 represents anticipated Land Registry fees and SDLT.
The firm pays the entire £240,000 into its client account. Two days later, before delivering a bill, the firm transfers £15,000 from client account to office account. No client authority has been given for the transfer.
Which statement best reflects the firm’s position?
A. The transfer is permitted because the firm was entitled to the fees on completion.
B. The transfer is permitted because the money was a mixed payment.
C. The transfer breaches the Accounts Rules because no bill had been delivered.
D. The transfer breaches the Accounts Rules only if the client later disputes the fees.
E. The transfer is permitted provided the firm replaces the money within 14 days.
✅ Correct Answer: C. The transfer breaches the Accounts Rules because no bill had been delivered. Explanation: Under the SRA Accounts Rules, money received that includes both client money and office money is a mixed payment and may be paid into the client account. However, withdrawal of costs from client account is strictly regulated. A firm may only transfer money for its fees from client account to office account if one of the following applies: a bill of costs (or written notification of costs) has been delivered to the client; or the client has given informed consent to the withdrawal. In this scenario: although the firm was entitled to charge fees, no bill had been delivered, and no client authority had been given. As a result, the firm was not entitled to withdraw the £15,000 at that stage. Entitlement to fees is not the same as compliance with the Accounts Rules. The breach arises immediately upon improper withdrawal, regardless of whether the client later disputes the amount.
Why the other options are wrong (exam traps)
- A confuses contractual entitlement with regulatory compliance.
- B correctly identifies a mixed payment but misunderstands the withdrawal rules.
- D wrongly suggests a retrospective test based on dispute.
- E reflects a common myth; replacing money later does not cure a breach.
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