Monday 30 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 web version of this newsletter.
Exclusive Subscriber Discounts:
1) *ENDING midnight tonight!* 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:
The Minister for Housing introduces a new policy stating that no new housing development permits will be granted in any area designated as a greenbelt zone, regardless of individual circumstances. GreenLife Developments Ltd. applies for permission to build eco-friendly homes in a greenbelt area but is automatically refused without any consideration of the details of their application. GreenLife believes the policy is too rigid and challenges the refusal by seeking judicial review. On which ground of judicial review is GreenLife Developments Ltd. most likely to succeed in challenging the Minister’s refusal?
A. Illegality, because the Minister acted entirely outside their statutory powers.
B. Procedural impropriety, because the Minister failed to provide GreenLife with reasons for the refusal.
C. Irrationality, because the decision to refuse permission was arbitrary and absurd.
D. Fettering of discretion, because the Minister applied the policy too rigidly without considering the individual merits of the application.
E. Proportionality, because the Minister’s decision infringes the company’s constitutional rights under the Magna Carta.
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.
NEW Podcast! Wish there was a decent podcast where people were talking about key FLK topics? Your wish has come true! I am launching “Functioning Law” the only podcast designed to help you navigate SQE FLK. Access all episodes here.
Last Week’s Question:
Imran writes a letter to his sister stating: “I hope you will look after my vintage book collection. I’d like you to keep some of the more valuable ones for your children and maybe give the rest to our cousin Ali if you think he’d appreciate them. I know you’ll do the right thing.” Imran passes away shortly after. A dispute arises over whether this letter creates a valid trust over the book collection. His sister claims she is free to deal with the books as she wishes, while Ali argues a trust was created in his favour.
Which of the following best explains the likely legal position under the law of trusts in England and Wales?
A. A valid trust exists because Imran made his intentions clear and identified the subject matter and beneficiaries.
B. No trust exists because Imran failed to demonstrate certainty of intention to create a trust.
C. A valid trust exists in favour of the sister’s children only, as they were named first.
D. No trust exists because the property (the books) was not clearly identified as being part of the trust.
E. A resulting trust arises automatically in favour of Ali because he was named as a potential recipient.
✅ Correct Answer: B. No trust exists because Imran failed to demonstrate certainty of intention to create a trust. For a valid express trust to exist under common law, the “three certainties” must be satisfied (as established in Knight v Knight (1840)):
- Certainty of intention – The settlor must intend to create a binding legal obligation, not merely express a wish or moral hope.
- Certainty of subject matter – The property that is to be held on trust must be clearly identified.
- Certainty of objects (beneficiaries) – The persons or class of persons intended to benefit must be clearly identified or ascertainable.
In this case:
- The phrase “I hope you will look after…” and “if you think he’d appreciate them” shows precatory language—a moral request, not a binding obligation.
- Courts consistently hold that such language fails to demonstrate certainty of intention, as in cases like Lambe v Eames (1871) and Re Adams and Kensington Vestry (1884).
- Therefore, no trust is created, and the sister likely holds the books absolutely.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:
- A is incorrect: While the property (books) and potential beneficiaries are named, intention is lacking.
- C is incorrect: The order of naming beneficiaries does not create certainty of intention or priority.
- D is incorrect: The subject matter (the vintage book collection) is sufficiently identified.
- E is incorrect: A resulting trust only arises where there is a failure of an express trust or where property is transferred without intention to benefit the recipient. That’s not the case here.
Thank you for subscribing and let me know how you are getting on in your preparation through our Facebook Group or *NEW* 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 Glinavos
Leave a Reply