Monday 26 October 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. You can view a web version of this newsletter by clicking here.
Livestream! Join me live this Wednesday at 1pm for FLK2 Trusts Law MCQs
This Week’s Question: A woman witnesses a serious road accident caused by a delivery driver’s negligent driving. Her husband is struck by the vehicle and suffers severe injuries. The woman is standing approximately 30 metres away and sees the collision directly. She immediately runs to her husband and remains with him until the ambulance arrives. Although he survives, she subsequently develops a medically recognised post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The driver’s employer accepts that the driver was negligent and that the woman suffered a genuine psychiatric illness. However, it argues that she cannot recover damages because she was not physically endangered and did not suffer any physical injury. Which of the following best describes the woman’s potential claim?
A. She cannot recover because psychiatric injury is compensable in negligence only where the claimant was personally exposed to physical danger.
B. She can recover automatically because witnessing serious injury to a spouse establishes liability without requiring any further conditions.
C. She may recover as a secondary victim because she directly witnessed the accident, had a close relationship with the injured person and suffered a recognised psychiatric illness.
D. She cannot recover because the law requires the person injured in the accident to have died before a secondary victim may claim damages.
E. She may recover only if she proves that the driver specifically foresaw psychiatric injury to her as an individual.
Dig Deeper: Want to revise Tort Law? Watch my new video on https://youtu.be/zKIJVrXO1Gg
Exclusive Subscriber Offers:
1) Missed the Contract Law Super Session? Get the Digital Pack here, and don’t forget YT Prepper and Substack members get £5 off (contact me for the discount code).
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/
Last Week’s Question: A company is defending a civil claim involving the interpretation of a statutory provision. Two earlier decisions of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) reached conflicting conclusions on the interpretation of the same provision. Neither decision has been overturned by the Supreme Court, and no relevant legislation has changed. The company’s solicitor argues that the later Court of Appeal decision must automatically prevail because it is more recent. The case is now being heard by the Court of Appeal, which must determine which interpretation to follow.
Which of the following best describes the Court of Appeal’s position?
A. The Court of Appeal must follow the later decision because more recent decisions automatically take precedence over earlier authorities of equal status.
B. The Court of Appeal must refer the matter to the Supreme Court because it has no authority to resolve conflicts between its own previous decisions.
C. The Court of Appeal may disregard both decisions and adopt a new interpretation whenever it considers that doing so would produce a fairer outcome.
D. The Court of Appeal must follow the earlier decision because the first authoritative interpretation of a statutory provision is binding on subsequent courts.
E. The Court of Appeal may choose which of its conflicting decisions to follow because an established exception to the doctrine of precedent applies.
Correct answer: E. The Court of Appeal may choose which of its conflicting decisions to follow because an established exception to the doctrine of precedent applies. Feedback: The doctrine of judicial precedent (stare decisis) ordinarily requires the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) to follow its own previous decisions. However, in Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd [1944] KB 718, the Court of Appeal established three principal exceptions:
- Where two previous Court of Appeal decisions conflict, the court may choose which to follow.
- Where a previous Court of Appeal decision is inconsistent with a subsequent binding decision of the Supreme Court (formerly the House of Lords), the higher authority must be followed.
- Where a previous decision was made per incuriam, the court is not bound to follow it.
SQE1 examination point: Candidates should distinguish the Court of Appeal’s limited ability to depart from its own precedent from the Supreme Court’s broader discretion under the Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) 1966. The distinction is expressly relevant to the development of case law under the SRA FLK1 Legal System specification.
A is wrong because there is no general rule that a later decision of a court automatically overrides an earlier decision of equal authority. The existence of conflicting decisions creates an exception to the usual rule, but the Court of Appeal is not obliged to prefer the more recent decision.
B is wrong because the Court of Appeal has authority to resolve conflicts between its own decisions under Young v Bristol Aeroplane. A reference or appeal to the Supreme Court is not a prerequisite.
C is wrong because the Court of Appeal cannot disregard binding precedent merely because it prefers a different or fairer interpretation. Its freedom to depart from its own decisions is governed by recognised exceptions.
D is wrong because an earlier decision does not automatically prevail over a later conflicting decision. The Court of Appeal may select which of the two conflicting authorities to follow.
E is correct because the existence of two conflicting Court of Appeal decisions engages the first exception recognised in Young v Bristol Aeroplane. The court may therefore determine which interpretation should be followed, without being automatically bound by either the earlier or later decision.
Thank you for subscribing and let me know how you are getting on in your preparation 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