Monday 13 April 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.
SQE1 July Prep Livestreams coming up! Join me Wednesdays at 1pm live for our MCQ workshop. Free for the whole community. Our next session will be this Wednesday 15 April on Dispute Resolution on https://youtube.com/live/vfznDGyD-F4
NEW! AI knowledge-gap tutor: I have been working on a tool to help students identify whether they have covered enough of the content for the exam and to evaluate their level of prep. You can try the tool free via https://glintiss.co.uk/triage/ it is a custom GPT running via ChatGPT.
This Week’s Question: A company purchases goods from a supplier on credit. The contract states that ownership of the goods remains with the supplier until full payment is made. The company later grants a bank a floating charge over all its stock. Before paying the supplier, the company becomes insolvent. At the time of insolvency, some goods are still identifiable, while others have been sold and mixed into finished products. Both the supplier and the bank claim priority over the remaining assets. Which of the following best reflects the likely legal position?
A. The bank has priority over all goods because a floating charge covers all stock of the company.
B. The supplier has priority over all goods because ownership never passed to the company under the clause.
C. The supplier may recover identifiable goods, but will lose priority over goods that have been sold or transformed.
D. The bank automatically takes priority because secured creditors rank ahead of unsecured suppliers in all cases.
E. The supplier will rank as an unsecured creditor for all goods because retention clauses are not enforceable in insolvency.
Dig Deeper: Revising FLK Business Law and insolvency? Watch https://youtu.be/eUj0hsJhuUg and read the concept summary on https://open.substack.com/pub/dryannissqe/p/insolvency-waterfall-and-registered
Exclusive Subscriber Freebies & Discounts:
1) Try my FREE MCQ Test Bank! This newsletter’s questions in a test bank you can attempt live! 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 10% off any plan on Law Drills at https://www.practiceworks.io/lawdrills/
4) Preparing for 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 man is tried in the Crown Court for robbery. During the trial, the prosecution seeks to rely on a previous conviction of the defendant for a similar offence committed five years earlier. The defendant has chosen to give evidence and, during cross-examination, states that he is “not the sort of person who would ever use violence.” The prosecution applies to adduce evidence of the previous conviction as bad character evidence. Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which of the following best explains whether the evidence of the previous conviction is admissible?
A. The evidence is automatically admissible because all previous convictions are relevant to credibility once the defendant gives evidence.
B. The evidence is admissible because the defendant has made an assertion about his own good character, allowing the prosecution to rebut it.
C. The evidence is inadmissible unless the defendant consents, because prior convictions are excluded to ensure a fair trial.
D. The evidence is admissible only if the prosecution can show that the previous conviction directly proves the defendant committed the current offence.
E. The evidence is inadmissible because it would unfairly prejudice the jury, regardless of what the defendant said in evidence.
✅ Correct Answer: B. The evidence is admissible because the defendant has made an assertion about his own good character, allowing the prosecution to rebut it. Feedback: Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, evidence of a defendant’s bad character is generally inadmissible unless it falls within one of the statutory gateways set out in s.101(1). One key gateway applies where the defendant has made an attack on another person’s character or has given a false impression about their own character (s.101(1)(f) and (g)). Here, by stating that he is “not the sort of person who would ever use violence,” the defendant has presented himself as having good character in relation to violence. This opens the door for the prosecution to introduce evidence of a previous conviction for a similar violent offence in order to correct that misleading impression.
The other options are incorrect because:
- A is wrong: previous convictions are not automatically admissible merely because the defendant gives evidence.
- C is wrong: admissibility does not depend solely on the defendant’s consent; the statutory gateways apply.
- D is wrong: the evidence does not need to directly prove the current offence; it can be admitted under specific gateways such as correcting a false impression.
- E is wrong: although the court must consider fairness (including under s.101(3)), evidence is not automatically excluded simply because it is prejudicial.
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