Monday 16 June 2025
Your weekly SQE Prep Quiz has arrived
Dear Subscriber,
I hope you had a great weekend! Please see below for the question, the answer to the previous question and associated resources. This is the a web version of this newsletter.
Exclusive Subscriber Discounts:
1) Use code “ioannis50” to benefit from a 7 day free trial and an additional 50% off for 3 months on SQE MCQ platform Kinnu https://kinnu.xyz/law/sqe
2) Use code “REVSQE10” for 10% off all ReviseSQE products (including bundles) and free p&p for printed resources when purchasing directly at https://revise4law.co.uk/revisesqe-shop/
3) Use code “IOANNIS” to get 15% off any of the Pro Plans of AI tutor LawDrills at https://www.lawdrills.com/
This Week’s Question:
Clara mistakenly transfers £5,000 to the bank account of Morgan, believing it to be the correct account for her wedding caterer (who had a similar business name). Morgan is a self-employed baker who receives the funds, realises it was likely a mistake, but chooses to keep the money and spend it on personal expenses. Clara contacts Morgan to request the money back. Morgan refuses, arguing that there was no contract between them and that Clara’s mistake is not her responsibility.
On what legal basis could Clara bring a successful claim against Morgan to recover the £5,000?
A. Breach of contract, because Morgan accepted the payment without objection.
B. Fraud, because Morgan knew the money wasn’t hers and spent it dishonestly.
C. Breach of fiduciary duty, as Morgan had a duty to safeguard Clara’s funds.
D. Unjust enrichment, because Morgan received a benefit at Clara’s expense without legal justification.
E. Tort of conversion, because Morgan interfered with Clara’s property rights.
Community: Join me live every Tuesday at 12.30pm London time between now and the SQE1 July sitting on YouTube to practice MCQs, chat about SQE prep and hang out with other candidates. Tomorrow’s link is here.
Candidates keep asking me for notes, infographics and flowcharts: I am launching a new series of 5′ video explainers of key SQE FLK topics. Videos and exclusive PDFs are available to channel members. Join for instant access.
Last Week’s Question:
TechSmart Ltd. operates a computer repair business. One of its technicians, Alex, is employed full-time and works at client homes to carry out repairs. While attending a customer’s home to fix a laptop, Alex intentionally accesses private photos stored on the customer’s device and uploads them to a personal cloud account. The customer, Ms Khan, sues TechSmart Ltd. for breach of privacy and emotional distress. TechSmart Ltd. argues that it should not be liable for Alex’s actions, as he acted outside his job duties and in direct violation of company policy. Which of the following best explains whether TechSmart Ltd. may be held liable for Alex’s actions?
A. TechSmart Ltd. will not be liable because Alex acted for his own personal gratification and outside the scope of employment.
B. TechSmart Ltd. will only be liable if Ms Khan can prove the company gave Alex express instructions to access her private files.
C. TechSmart Ltd. may be vicariously liable if there is a close connection between Alex’s employment and the wrongful act, even if Alex acted deliberately.
D. TechSmart Ltd. is automatically liable for all actions of its employees during working hours.
E. TechSmart Ltd. is not liable because Alex’s actions were criminal in nature, which breaks the chain of employment liability.
Correct Answer: C. TechSmart Ltd. may be vicariously liable if there is a close connection between Alex’s employment and the wrongful act, even if Alex acted deliberately. Under English tort law, vicarious liability arises when an employer is held strictly liable for the tortious acts of an employee committed in the course of employment. The modern test, as clarified in cases such as Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] and Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc [2016], asks whether:
- There is a relationship akin to employment, and
- There is a sufficiently close connection between the employee’s role and the wrongful act, such that it would be fair and just to impose liability on the employer.
In this case:
- Alex was entrusted with access to the laptop as part of his employment.
- His tortious act (privacy invasion) was closely connected to the task he was employed to carry out (computer repair).
- Even though the act was unauthorised and personal, the employer may still be vicariously liable, especially if the act was a misuse of the position granted to the employee.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:
- A is incorrect: Personal motive does not automatically absolve the employer if the act is closely connected to the employment (see Mohamud).
- B is incorrect: Express instructions are not required; what matters is the connection between the job and the act.
- D is incorrect: Liability is not automatic during working hours—it depends on the nature of the act and its connection to the job.
- E is incorrect: The fact that an act is criminal does not preclude vicarious liability if the act is sufficiently connected to employment.
Thank you for subscribing and let me know how you are getting on in your preparation through our Facebook Group. 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 Glinavos
Leave a Reply