Monday 4 August 2025
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. 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: A man brings a civil claim in nuisance against a local authority. The council applies to stay proceedings, arguing the man should have first used their internal complaints procedure, which is a form of alternative dispute resolution. The man argues he has a right to a judicial hearing, and the court cannot force him to use ADR before issuing a claim. Following Churchill v. Merthyr Tydfil CBC, which of the following best reflects the current legal position?
A. The court must refuse to stay proceedings because access to the courts cannot be delayed by ADR.
B. The court may stay proceedings if it considers that the claimant unreasonably refused to attempt ADR.
C. ADR is always voluntary, and a party cannot be required to use it before litigation.
D. A stay is only possible if the ADR scheme is regulated by statute or ombudsman.
E. The claimant has an absolute right to a court hearing, and ADR can only be suggested after proceedings begin.
Dig Deeper: Learn more about changes in civil procedure, by watching this video (incudes updates for 2025).
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:
A woman offers to sell a rare violin to a man for £15,000. The next day, the man replies, “I’ll buy it for £13,000.” She does not respond. Two days later, the man sends another message saying, “I accept your original offer of £15,000.” By that time, the woman has already sold the violin to someone else for £16,000. The man brings a claim for breach of contract. Which of the following best explains the legal position?
A. There is a binding contract because the man eventually accepted the original offer in full.
B. There is a binding contract because the woman did not withdraw her offer in writing.
C. No contract exists because the man’s counter-offer terminated the original offer.
D. No contract exists because the violin was sold for a higher price to someone else.
E. A contract exists if the original offer was open for at least seven days.
✅ Correct Answer: C. No contract exists because the man’s counter-offer terminated the original offer. Under English contract law, an offer is terminated by a counter-offer (Hyde v Wrench [1840]). The man’s attempt to negotiate by offering £13,000 amounts to a counter-offer, which legally rejects and kills the original offer. Once rejected, the original offer cannot be revived by later acceptance unless the seller re-offers.
- A is incorrect: The original offer was extinguished by the counter-offer and could not be accepted later.
- B is incorrect: Revocation does not need to be in writing, and the issue here is termination by counter-offer, not revocation.
- D is incorrect: The higher price is irrelevant unless a contract had already been formed.
- E is incorrect: There is no rule requiring an offer to remain open for a set number of days unless explicitly stated.
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