The victim is walking beside a river one evening when he is approached by the defendant who is desperate for money to buy drugs. The defendant pulls out a large knife from his pocket and threatens the victim with it. When the victim refuses to hand over his wallet, the defendant lunges at him with the knife and stabs him in the stomach. The victim subsequently dies. The defendant is arrested for murder but argues that he is not liable because of an intervening event.
Which of the following events is most likely to break the chain of causation?
A) The victim is a good swimmer and so he decides to jump into the river to try to escape but he drowns as he is caught in weeds growing underwater.
B) The victim is lying severely injured when there is a sudden thunderstorm during which the river rises so rapidly, it bursts its banks and he is drowned.
C) The victim is taken to hospital but, on the way, the ambulance driver is taken ill; the victim dies while waiting for a second ambulance to arrive
Option B is the correct answer as the victim dies of an unforeseen and extraordinary natural event.
A is wrong as the chain of causation is not broken here because the victim’s act is not free, deliberate and informed; effectively, he is forced into the situation. Also, a good swimmer jumping into a river to escape being stabbed is not ‘daft’ – R v Roberts [1971].
C is wrong because the ambulance stopping due to the driver becoming unwell is also not free, deliberate and informed (voluntary).
BA man is out shopping when he comes across two people arguing in the car park. He realises that one of them is his neighbour whom he dislikes so he shouts encouragement to the other one to “hit him as hard as you can”. Neither of them hears him as they are too engrossed in fighting each other.
Will the man be liable for abetting the assault?
A) Yes, because for abetting there does not need to be a meeting of minds between the accomplice and the principal.
B) Yes, as there is no need for there to be a causal link between the accomplice’s encouragement and the principal’s actions.
C) No, because for abetting there needs to be a meeting of minds and a causal link between the accomplice and the principal.
D) No, because for abetting there needs to be a meeting of minds at some stage between the accomplice and the principal.
D is correct. The actus reus of accomplice liability is committed by aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring. On the facts, the man is trying to encourage the assault, but it does not appear that the principal is aware of it. For abetting there must usually be a meeting of minds at some stage between the accomplice and the principal. Option A therefore is wrong.
B is wrong because while it is correct that there is no need for a causal link, abetting does require a meeting of minds between the accomplice and the principal which is not present on the facts.
C is wrong - for abetting there does not need to be a causal link between the accomplice and the principal.
Two trustees hold a large country estate on trust for a brother and his sister for life with remainder to their cousin in fee simple. The trust was set up five years ago, when the brother was aged 16 years, his sister was aged 12 years and the cousin was aged 21 years. The trustees now plan to sell part of the property to raise funds to buy a flat in the city for the brother and his sisters to live in.
Who must the trustees must consult about their plans?
The brother only
Under TLATA, the trustees of a trust of land must consult with all of the beneficiaries who are of full age (18 or over) and who have an interest in possession (entitled to an immediate interest in the land). On the facts, only the brother and his sister have an interest in possession as the cousin’s interest is in remainder.
However, although the brother was only aged 16 years and not of full age when the trust was set up, that was five years ago and he is now of full age. His sister is now only aged 17 years.
A university student wants to visit the drive-through of a local takeaway one evening followed by catching a movie at the cinema on his own. Realising he has no money left until pay day next week, he takes a £20 note that he spots on the bedside drawer of his roommate who is much richer than him. The fact that his roommate is richer has recently been causing a rift between the two, something which the university student admits.
On the day of the trial, the only element that remains to be proven by the prosecution is the university student’s dishonesty.
A) Yes, because his actions are clearly dishonest.
D) Yes, because his conduct was dishonest by the objective standards of ordinary, decent people.
Option A is the best answer given the rift between the two. This is a case where the defendant’s dishonesty is clear.
D is not the best answer. This is the second part of the two-stage test set out in Ivey v Genting Casinos - that test is not applicable on these facts, given this is a clear case of dishonesty.
Does the mens rea for s18 GBH include:
a) Intent to cause GBH
b) Recklessness as to causing GBH
c) Intent to cause GBH or wounding
A is correct - the mens rea is an intention to cause grievous bodily harm.
Only specific intent (to cause GBH) will do for a s.18 offence and it cannot be committed recklessly
C is wrong as a s18 assault cannot be committed by an intention to wound.
A lender has taken a mortgage over a property to secure a loan that it has made. The mortgage is by deed and has been duly registered at Land Registry. The borrower is several months late with its interest payments and the lender is considering possible remedies. The lender wishes to keep the mortgage in existence for the time being and to allow the borrower to remain in occupation and to receive any income the property might produce.
Which of the following remedies is the most appropriate for recovering the money due whilst meeting the lender’s wishes?
A) Foreclosure
B) Taking possession
C) Appointing a receiver
D) Debt Action
E) Sale
Option D is the best answer as a debt action would mean that the mortgage continued in force and the borrower remained in possession.
Options B and C are not the best answers. Taking possession would mean that the borrower no longer remained in occupation and appointing a receiver would mean that the borrower was no longer entitled to any income from the property.
Sale or foreclosure would bring the mortgage to an end and so, options A and E are wrong.
Two brothers bought a property together and both their names were entered on the proprietorship register. The only entries on the proprietorship register are (1) their details and (2) the purchase price paid for the property. One of the brothers has died (‘the deceased’) and the other brother is selling the property to your client.
Which one of the following statements represents the best advice to give your client about what steps must be taken to enable your client to register his title at the Land Registry.
D) It will be necessary to overreach the deceased beneficial interest as the beneficial title was held by both brothers as tenants in common and it will be necessary to appoint a 2nd trustee to enable a valid receipt to be given to your client.
E) It will not be necessary to overreach the deceased beneficial interest as the beneficial title was held by both tenants as joint tenants but evidence of the deceased death will be required when your client’s title is registered at the Land Registry.
E is correct - In the absence of a restriction on the proprietorship register in a co-ownership situation the beneficial interest is held as joint tenants and the rule of survivorship applies.
A vegan group are planning a protest outside a butcher’s shop in London. A group who support the butcher discover this and plan to hold their own counter-protest. The police fear that serious violence will break out between the two groups as has happened at similar protests in the past. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (‘the Commissioner’) plans to apply to the Home Secretary to ban both protests on the basis that they would result in serious public disorder and that imposing conditions would be ineffective to prevent this.
Which one of the following best explains whether the Commissioner has power to apply to the Home Secretary for consent to ban the protests.
B) The Commissioner has power to apply to the Home Secretary for consent to ban the protests as she reasonably believes that imposing conditions would be ineffective to prevent serious public disorder.
C) The Commissioner has no power to apply to the Home Secretary for consent to ban the protests as she cannot ban the protests in advance.
E) The Commissioner has power to apply to the Home Secretary for consent to ban the protests as she reasonably believes that the protests will result in serious public disorder.
Option C is the correct answer because the police have no power to ban a static demonstration in advance.
Option B is wrong because it describes when the police can apply to ban public processions rather than static demonstrations.
Option E is wrong because it relates to the power to impose conditions rather than ban.
Is self defence an objective or subjective test?
1) Did the defendant honestly believe that the use of force is necessary to defend themselves, defend another or prevent a crime (subjective)
2) Was the use of force reasonable? (Objective but on circumstances the defendant honestly believed them to be)
A client, a sole trader, bought from a High Street retailer for £1,500 a self- assemble fire-proof filing cabinet to store important business documents. Once all the pieces had been unpacked the client realised that the cabinet did not come with two keys as described in the brochure. There is just one key. There are no other problems with the cabinet, but the client wants to reject it and get a refund.
Will the client’s claim succeed?
B) No, because the breach is so slight it would be unreasonable for the client to reject the cabinet.
C) Yes, because it was a sale by description and a statutory implied condition has been breached.
D) Yes, because the client can exercise the short term right to reject and get a full refund.
Option B is correct – s15A SGA
Option C is wrong. The term implied by s13 SGA is a condition but rejection is likely to be barred (s15A SGA).
Option D is wrong. The short term right to reject is only available to consumers who buy from traders (CRA).
A woman is unhappy that a local theatre is staging a play which offends her religious beliefs. She puts a message on social media inviting people to join her in staging a peaceful protest meeting to be held on the steps of the theatre an hour before the play begins.
The police attend and find a large crowd has gathered on the steps and in the entrance hall of the theatre. They are concerned that protestors at the meeting may become violent when members of the audience arrive, as happened at a similar ‘peaceful’ meeting the previous week in a nearby town. A police officer tells the woman that she must move her meeting to the town square, a short distance away.
Did the police officer act lawfully?
C) No, because the police officer does not have a reasonable belief that the meeting will result in serious violence.
E) Yes, because the police officer can take such action using powers to prevent a breach of the peace.
The correct answer is E. The police officer reasonably apprehends an imminent breach of the peace (the theatre goers will be arriving shortly) and can use preventative powers to avoid this, including asking protestors to move away.
Option C is wrong because the police officer does not need to fear serious violence to exercise common law powers relating to breach of the peace. This is only necessary for giving directions under the POA 1986. Common law powers can be used ‘whenever harm is done or likely to be done’ (R v Howell).
A client was owed £1,000. The debtor contacted the client and explained that they were in financial difficulty and could only afford to repay £500. Mindful that it is generally better to get some money rather than risk getting none, the client agreed to accept £500 in full and final settlement of the debt provided it was paid before the due date. The debtor agreed and paid the client £500 early.
If the client sues the debtor for the extra £500 will the client succeed?
A) No, because the debtor gave consideration for the client’s promise to accept £500 in settlement of the debt.
D) Yes, because part payment of a debt is not consideration for a promise to forgo the balance.
E) Yes, because the debtor gave nothing of value in exchange for the client’s promise to accept part payment.
Option A is correct. Part payment early is consideration- Pinnel’s case. This also explains why options D and E are wrong.
Part payment is not considereation for a promise to accept less. However, if a new element is given in addition to part pament (e.g. early payment), that will be consideration
A construction company entered into a contract with a client to build an outside pizza kitchen at the client’s pizzeria. The contract price was £30,000 and the client paid the company £3,000 in advance. Right from the start the client complained about issues (such as the builders’ timekeeping, swearing and complacency) and part way through the job terminated the contract with the company. The client has now found a builder who will complete the work for £10,000; but in the meantime, is being sued by the company.
To what, if anything, is the company entitled?
B) Nothing due to the doctrine of complete performance.
E) Loss of bargain damages.
Option E is correct. The company may have breached the contract but in any event, the term implied by s13SGSA is innominate and here any breach does not appear to be serious.
That being so the company was wrongfully prevented from completing the contract -Planche v Colbourn. Loss of bargain damages (expecatoin loss) is an alternative to a reasonable sum.
B is wrong as wrongful prevention is an exception to the doctrine of complete performance
A client, factory owner, entered into a contract with a security company (‘the Company’) to provide security services each day from 5pm to 8am and at bank holidays and weekends when the factory was not in operation. One night a security guard employed by the Company deliberately lit a fire. The fire got out of control and destroyed the client’s factory. The Company admits liability for breach of contract
Which of the following best describes the type of damages that will be awarded to the client?
D) Restitutionary damages to stop the Company being unjustly enriched at the client’s expense.
E) Compensatory damages for loss of expectation.
E is correct - expectation loss basis is awarded where the court aims to put the party in the position they would have been if the contract had been performed properly
D is wrong as restitutionary damages are awarded to ensure the other party is not being unjustly enriched e.g. in Blake where the former spy made a profit from books sold with national secrets
Ten months ago a commercial client bought a business. It has now discovered that the net profit had been grossly exaggerated by the seller early in the negotiations leading up to the client purchasing the business. The client had not stressed the importance of the alleged net profit and although it had been given the chance to check the business accounts before committing to the deal, had declined. The client had believed the seller to be honourable but now wants to take legal action against the seller.
Which of the following options best explains the remedy or remedies that might be awarded if the client is successful?
A) The client may rescind the contract and get damages representing the difference between the net profit it made and the net profit it had expected to make.
C) Rescission would likely be barred but the client would be awarded damages for loss of net profit calculated on a tortious basis.
E) The contract would be rescinded and damages awarded representing the difference between the profit made and the profit it would have made if it had bought a similar business.
C is correct - likely to have been misrepresentation, but recission would be barred by undue delay and restitution may be impossible.
Assuming that the misrepresentation was made negligently (and it will be difficult for the seller to prove that the gross exaggeration in net profits was an innocent mistake), damages would be assessed on a tortious basis.
Option A is wrong because rescission is unlikely to be available and damages would be awarded on a tortious basis, not on an expectation basis.
E is wrong as recisission unlikely to be available
In calculating delay, the court doesn’t look at when misrepresentation was actually discovered but when it should have been discovered - UNLESS fradulent misrepresentation when it runs from when it was discovered
A contract for the sale of a business is rarely rescinded. A business is
likely to have changed its position (e.g by entering into contracts with third parties) rendering rescission impossible
If an easement has been created by deed but hasn’t been registered, will it be equitable or legal
No it will only be an equitable easement (unless unregistered land where legal easements bind everyone)
However, easements created by implication (on the sale of part of the land) or by prescription (through 20+ years of continuous use) are deemed to be legal automatically as overriding interest
Same with leases
Will an interest arising under a trust bind a purchaser in unregistered land?
Interests under a trust are still bound by pre-1926 rules (like legal interests) so will bind everyone except equity’s darling
Must be bona fider purchaser for value without knowledge
Will an interest arising under a trust bind a purchaser in registered land?
Yes, if overriding interest due to actual occupation
If protected by a restriction in the proprietorship register, it won’t bind the buyer but will alert a purchaser to overreach
What constitutes aggravated burglary
a) The weapon was with them at the time of entry to the dwelling
b) They intended to use the weapon during the course of committing the burglary
A - guilty of aggravated burglary if he commits any burglary and at the time has with him any firearm or imitation firearm, any weapon of choice, or any explosive
Defendant must know they have the item with them, but no need to prove that they intended to use the weapon during the burglary
Will be guilty under (b) if you arm yourself with an object within the house e.g. knife even if you don’t have it with you at time of entry
Can pain and suffering or loss of amenity be claimed by an estate where the decaesed was in a coma?
Pain and suffering will not be awarded as the decased would not have consciously experienced pain
But may be compensated for loss of amenity for loss of ability to enjoy life
The court is asked to assess the validity of a contract with a man who claims to have suffered from mental incapacity at the time the contract was formed
When assessing the validity of the contract, what best explains the effect of mental incapacity?
a) The contract will be void once the court is satisfied that the man did not have mental capacity at the time of entering the contract
d) The contract will be voidable if the man is able to prove he lacked mental capacity at the time of the contract, and that the other party knew or ought to have known about it
D is correct - the burden of establishing mental incapacity rests with party raising it
Also for them to show the other party knew or ought reasonably to have known about the incapacity. Once proven, the effect of mental incapacity will make the contract voidable
Mental incapacity renders a contract voidable (so A is wrong)
What are the requirements for gross negligence manslaughter?
1) Duty of care
2) Breach of duty
3) Risk that the conduct could cause death
4) Causation
5) Did the conduct fall so far below the standards of reaosnable people in their situation that they can be labelled grossly negligent and deserving of punishment?
