Monday 7 July 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) 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/
2) 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:
Eleanor, an elderly widow, relies heavily on her nephew, Tom, to help manage her finances and personal affairs. Tom suggests that Eleanor transfer her house into his name so he can “better look after her interests.” Eleanor hesitates but eventually signs the transfer documents after Tom repeatedly assures her it’s for her own good. After speaking to a solicitor months later, Eleanor regrets the decision and seeks to have the transfer set aside on the grounds of undue influence. Which of the following statements best reflects the legal position under the doctrine of undue influence in Eleanor’s case?
A. Eleanor cannot set aside the transfer because she signed the documents voluntarily, even if she relied on Tom’s advice.
B. Eleanor may be able to set aside the transfer because Tom’s relationship with her gives rise to a presumption of undue influence.
C. Eleanor has no claim because undue influence applies only where physical threats are used to force someone to sign a document.
D. Eleanor can only set aside the transfer if she proves Tom’s intention was to defraud her.
E. Eleanor cannot set aside the transaction unless Tom is her solicitor or financial adviser acting professionally.
Community: Join me live tomorrow Tuesday at 12.30pm London time for the last livestream before the SQE1 July sitting 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:
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.
✅ Correct Answer: D. Fettering of discretion, because the Minister applied the policy too rigidly without considering the individual merits of the application. Explanation: Fettering of discretion occurs where a public authority:
• Adopts a blanket policy and refuses to consider exceptions.
• Renders statutory discretion effectively meaningless by failing to exercise independent judgment on individual cases.
In British Oxygen Co Ltd v Board of Trade [1971], the House of Lords held that a public authority may adopt a general policy but must not rigidly apply it without considering individual circumstances. Here:
• The Minister’s policy automatically excludes all greenbelt applications without considering individual merits, which is unlawful.
• GreenLife’s application should have been assessed on its individual facts to see if an exception was justified.
Thus, GreenLife’s strongest ground is fettering of discretion. Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:
A (Illegality) is incorrect because there’s no evidence the Minister acted entirely outside statutory powers—the issue is how the discretion was exercised.
B (Procedural impropriety) could apply if there was no fair hearing or notice, but the central problem here is rigid policy application.
C (Irrationality) might be argued, but the core legal issue is fettering discretion, not sheer unreasonableness.
E (Proportionality) applies mainly in Human Rights Act/ECHR contexts. This is a public law issue about administrative discretion, not fundamental rights under constitutional documents like Magna Carta.
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