Monday 4 May 2026
Your weekly SQE Prep Quiz has arrived
Dear Subscriber,
Hope you had a great Bank Holiday weekend. Please see below for the question, the answer to the previous question and associated resources. This is the web version of this newsletter.
Join our SQE1 July Prep Livestreams! Join me Wednesdays at 1pm live for our MCQ workshop. Free for the whole community. Our next session will be this Wednesday 29 April on the Legal System https://youtube.com/live/ktGiIbJ75PQ
This Week’s Question: A company challenges a regulatory decision based on rules originally derived from EU law. The rules were in force in the UK before the end of the transition period. The company argues that the court must interpret the rules consistently with pre-Brexit case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The regulator responds that the rules are now part of domestic law and may be interpreted differently. Which of the following best reflects the current legal position?
A. All EU-derived rules remain directly applicable in the UK and must be interpreted in line with all CJEU case law, past and future.
B. EU-derived rules automatically ceased to have effect after Brexit and cannot be relied on in UK courts.
C. EU-derived rules form part of domestic law, and while earlier CJEU decisions may still be relevant, UK courts are no longer strictly bound by them in the same way.
D. EU-derived rules continue to apply only where both parties agree to rely on them in litigation.
E. EU-derived rules can only be applied by UK courts if Parliament expressly re-enacts each provision after Brexit.
Dig Deeper: Revising FLK1 English Legal System? Watch https://youtu.be/MEyL7K86yDc
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) 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.
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 delivery company employs a driver to transport parcels. During his shift, the driver stops briefly to visit a friend, despite company rules prohibiting personal stops. While leaving the friend’s house, the driver reverses the van negligently and injures a pedestrian. At the same time, the pedestrian was crossing the road while looking at a phone and failed to notice the reversing van. The pedestrian brings a claim against the delivery company. Which of the following best reflects the likely legal position?
A. The company is not liable because the driver was acting outside his employment when visiting a friend.
B. The company is liable because the driver was employed, and all acts during working hours are attributable to the employer.
C. The company may be liable because the driver’s actions were sufficiently connected to his employment, but damages may be reduced due to the pedestrian’s conduct.
D. The company is not liable because the pedestrian contributed to the accident by using a phone while crossing the road.
E. The company is automatically liable for the driver’s negligence, and the pedestrian’s conduct is irrelevant.
Correct answer: C. The company may be liable because the driver’s actions were sufficiently connected to his employment, but damages may be reduced due to the pedestrian’s conduct. Feedback: This scenario engages two key tort principles: vicarious liability and contributory negligence. First, an employer may be vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee if there is a sufficiently close connection between the employee’s conduct and their employment. Even though the driver made a prohibited personal stop, he was still carrying out his delivery duties overall. A minor deviation (often described as a “detour”) will not necessarily break the connection with employment. Second, the pedestrian’s conduct may amount to contributory negligence under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945. Failing to pay attention while crossing the road may justify a reduction in damages, but it does not eliminate liability altogether. The other options are incorrect because:
A is wrong: a minor deviation does not automatically remove employer liability.
B is too broad: not all acts during working hours create liability; the connection to employment must be assessed.
D is wrong: contributory negligence reduces damages but does not eliminate the claim.
E is incorrect: contributory negligence is clearly relevant to the outcome.
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