Copy of Workbook Answers
Use the password printed inside your workbook to access the mini-scenario answers.
FLK1 Mini-Scenario Answers
Contract Law
Mini-scenario: Olivia/James car acceptance Likely yes. Olivia made an offer. James posted a properly addressed/stamped acceptance on Tuesday, so the postal rule means acceptance occurred on posting if post was contemplated. Olivia’s later sale to a third party was not communicated revocation, so a contract was formed on Tuesday.
Mini-scenario: Mr Ahmed windows Yes, likely. Mr Ahmed is expressly named and the term says the windows are for his benefit, so he may enforce under the 1999 Act unless the contract excludes third-party enforcement.
Mini-scenario: gym defective equipment exclusion Likely not enforceable. A clause excluding liability for injury caused by defective equipment/negligence is heavily controlled. For death/personal injury caused by negligence, exclusion is invalid under UCTA/CRA principles.
Mini-scenario: defective laptop Yes. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the laptop must be of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose and as described. Fault within one week gives the consumer the short-term right to reject or request repair/replacement.
Mini-scenario: threat of violence Duress. The contract is voidable, not automatically void so the innocent party can choose to rescind the contract, subject to bars such as affirmation or delay.
Mini-scenario: Mr and Mrs Khan charge The bank may not be able to enforce the charge due to presumed undue influence. The bank was put on inquiry because the transaction involved a non-commercial husband/wife relationship and Mrs Khan received no obvious benefit from the loan. The bank should therefore have taken reasonable steps to protect her, such as ensuring she received independent legal advice. As it failed to do so, the charge against Mrs Khan may be set aside.
Mini-scenario: destroyed vintage guitar Likely void for common mistake. Both parties contracted on the basis that the specific guitar existed, but it had already been destroyed, making performance of the contract impossible.
Mini-scenario: concert venue fire Frustration applies because the venue was destroyed without fault of either party, making performance impossible. Therefore, no future obligations so the £30,000 payment is not payable. The £20,000 deposit is also recoverable, but the court may allow the organiser’s £10,000 expenses to be retained/deducted at their discretion.
Mini-scenario: replacement goods higher price The buyer can claim damages in the difference between the original contract price and the higher replacement price. By purchasing replacement goods quickly, the buyer took reasonable steps to mitigate their loss so it likely will be recoverable and this consequence was foreseeable.
Mini-scenario: machinery resale The buyer can claim expectation loss. As the replacement machinery cost £115,000 instead of £100,000, the prima facie loss is £15,000. If the resale contract still went ahead, the buyer’s actual loss is only £15,000 because they still made a profit, just reduced from £30,000 to £15,000. However, if the resale contract failed because of the breach, the buyer may also claim the lost £30,000 resale profit if this was foreseeable. The buyer cannot recover twice for the same loss.
Mini-scenario: bespoke furniture advance payment The supplier’s refusal to perform is a repudiatory breach, allowing the customer to terminate the contract and claim damages. The customer can also recover the £10,000 paid in advance because there has been a total failure of consideration.
Mini-scenario: courier machine part delay The courier breached the contract by delaying delivery. Losses from the factory shutting down may be recoverable because it is reasonably foreseeable that delay in delivering an essential machine part could stop production. The exact extent of the loss is irrelevant if the type of loss was foreseeable. However, the losses under the lucrative supply contract are likely too remote because the courier was not told about that special contract or the unusually high losses that could result from delay.
Tort Law
Mini-scenario: GP abdominal pain The GP owed a duty of care as this is an established relationship. Failing to order tests may breach the standard of a reasonable GP if no responsible body of medical opinion would support the decision. Causation is likely satisfied because medical evidence suggests earlier diagnosis would probably have avoided the rupture and complications, so the claim likely succeeds on the balance of probabilities.
Mini-scenario: explosion losses A) Recoverable as this is property damage. B) Physical injury to the employee is recoverable. C) This is unlikely recoverable as it is pure economic loss. D) Psychiatric harm may be recoverable if rules satisfied as PTSD is a recognised psychiatric illness. E) A dependent sister may claim under the Fatal Accidents Act if she qualifies as a dependant.
Mini-scenario: drunk driver The driver cannot raise the consent defence because this doesn’t apply for road passengers. However, the driver may argue contributory negligence because the passenger knowingly accepted a lift from a drunk driver, which could reduce damages. Failing to wear a seatbelt is unlikely to reduce damages here because it probably made no difference to the injuries suffered.
Mini-scenario: hole in the garden The homeowner likely owed a duty because it was reasonably foreseeable that children may come near it (e.g. retrieving balls) so they should have known and it was reasonable to offer protection. Children are owed a higher standard of care. The partially obscured warning sign is insufficient, so there is likely a breach of duty.
Mini-scenario: hair styling tool The consumer may claim in:
· Contract- likely successful because the product was not of satisfactory quality or reasonably safe under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The overheating/explosion suggests the product was defective when sold.
· Negligence- potentially successful if the manufacturer failed to take reasonable care in production/design. The reports of similar incidents support an argument that the product was negligently manufactured or inspected.
· CPA- likely strongest claim. The product was defective because it was not as safe as people are entitled to expect. The claimant only needs to prove defect, damage and causation, not negligence. Therefore, the manufacturer arguing reasonable care was taken is unlikely to defeat the claim because of strict liability.
Mini-scenario: water tank Liability is unlikely because the flooding was caused by an extraordinary storm and collapsing trees, likely amounting to an act of God/Nature.
Mini-scenario: restaurant The restaurant may be liable in private nuisance because constant noise and cooking smells may amount to unreasonable interference with the neighbour’s use and enjoyment of land. However, the fact that the neighbour has abnormal sensitivity to interference (works night shifts) may only be considered if it is considered ordinary/reasonable use of land.
Dispute Resolution
Mini-scenario: resolution methods Mediation is best because it is private, more casual and encourages negotiation which will meet the companies aims of privacy and to preserve their commercial relationship.
Mini-scenario: starting a claim As the client discovered the loss 2 years after, it is within the limitation period (within 6 years from damage or 3 years from knowledge), so long as the total time since the date of damage was not 15+ years ago. The solicitor should confirm this and then send a detailed Letter of Claim under the relevant pre-action protocol and advise on ADR before issuing (in court) any proceedings in the future.
Mini-scenario: ADR Advise that although the client cannot be forced to settle, the court expects parties to consider ADR seriously. For a £120,000 commercial dispute, refusing mediation without good reason could be seen as unreasonable conduct. The solicitor should explain the costs risk: even if the client wins at trial, the court may reduce/ disallow their costs, or order them to pay some of the defendant’s costs, if they unreasonably refused ADR. The safer advice is to engage with mediation or give clear, reasonable reasons for refusing, rather than issuing immediately.
Mini-scenario: service if permission was required, then the service is invalid meaning the claim has not been served.
Mini-scenario: deemed service claim form posted 5 April 2026 likely deemed served 7 April; POC posted 19 April likely deemed served 21 April. POC valid if within 14 days after claim form service and claim form validity period.
Mini-scenario: setting aside DJ the claimant will likely seek default judgment. The defendant should apply promptly to set it aside under the discretionary ground using form N244. As there does appear to be a good reason for the default and there’s a strong defence, D should apply on the basis that there’s real prospect of successfully defending and attach a witness statement demonstrating how e.g. strong evidence.
Mini-scenario: limitation The negligence happened on 15 January 2020. The claimant issued the claim form and POC on 10 January 2026, so the original claim was issued just within the 6-year limitation period. However, the new fraud allegation emerged on 20 March 2026 (after the 6-year period from 15 January 2020). Therefore, the claimant must apply to court to amend the POC. The court will consider whether the new fraudulent misrepresentation claim arises out of the same or substantially the same facts as the original pleaded claim. If it does, the court may allow the amendment.
Mini-scenario: £150,000 negligence claimThe claimant should apply for an interim payment under CPR Part 25. The claim is for a substantial sum, the defendant has admitted partial liability and the claimant needs money before trial to fund repairs. The fact that the defendant disputes the exact amount of loss does not prevent an interim payment, provided the court is satisfied the claimant is likely to recover a substantial amount at trial.
Mini-scenario: £80,000 unpaid invoices The claimant should apply for summary judgment. The defendant’s Defence seems weak and non-comprehensive because it only says the fees were “too high” and does not dispute that the services were provided or the invoices received. The claimant should apply by application notice with evidence of the contract, invoices and performance. The court will grant summary judgment if the defendant has no real prospect of defending the claim and there is no other compelling reason for trial.
Mini-scenario: disclosure deadline missed A sanction will take place unless party applies for relief. This must be done promptly. The court will consider the seriousness/significance of the breach: missing a disclosure deadline may be serious if it disrupts the litigation timetable or trial date, but less serious if the delay is short and disclosure has now been completed. It will then consider the reason for default: solicitor error is usually not a strong reason, but it is still relevant. Finally, the court considers all the circumstances, including the need for efficient litigation and compliance with rules/orders, balanced against whether refusing relief would be disproportionate.
Mini-scenario: wet floor the statement by the claimant from the staff member is multiple hearsay evidence. It is admissible, but the claimant must serve a hearsay notice on the other party.
Mini-scenario: witness issues The claimant’s solicitor should apply for a witness summons to compel the eyewitness to attend trial. The summons must be issued by the court and personally served on the witness. The witness must also be offered conduct money for travel expenses and compensation for loss of time.
Mini-scenario: documents and disclosure
· Part 1: available for inspection
A. Contract-term emails between claimant and defendant.
B. Internal director emails about breach - as it seems they were not created for dominant person of litigation and are just internal business emails.
· Part 2: disclosed but inspection withheld
C. Solicitor legal advice emails - legal advice privilege.
D. Without prejudice settlement letter.
E. Draft expert report for litigation - litigation privilege.
· Part 3: no longer in control
F. Lost contract document - previously held, now cannot be located.
Mini-scenario: possible judgment Judgment can include liability, but can only award proven damages. If loss is not properly proved, the court may award nominal damages. Alternatively, the judge may make judgment on liability with damages to be assessed later at another hearing.
Mini-scenario: enforcing judgment
⁃ Charging order: available over the house. Value £600,000 minus £420,000 mortgage = approx. £180,000 equity, so enough to secure the £75,000 judgment. Could later seek order for sale (court may be cautious if its defendant’s home).
⁃ Third-party debt order: available over the £12,000 in the Barclays account, as the bank owes money to the defendant.
⁃ Attachment of earnings: available because the defendant is employed and earns £4,000/month. Useful for ongoing deductions, but slower.
⁃ Control of goods: possible for non-exempt goods. iPad may be taken. Office equipment may be taken only above the £1,350 work/study exemption. Clothes, cooker and microwave are essential, so cannot be taken. Loaned car cannot be taken because it belongs to someone else.
Most likely: charging order, because the house has enough equity to cover the judgment. Also use third-party debt order for quick recovery of £12,000.
Mini-scenario: appeals Appeal district judge’s decision to circuit judge; seek permission straight after decision or within 21 days. Will be granted if there is real prospect of success or other compelling reason. The ground of appeal should be that the decision was unjust due to an irregularity in interpretation.
Business Law and Practice
Mini-scenario: limited liability form Anna and Ben should use an LLP. It gives them limited liability while preserving flexible internal management, which suits two people running a design firm together. A general partnership would be simpler but would expose them to unlimited personal liability. A private company would also give limited liability, but it is generally more formal and less partnership-like in structure.
Mini-scenario: Public or private A public limited company may be better if the business expects rapid growth and wants to enhance reputation and raise significant capital, because a PLC can offer shares to the public. However, a PLC has stricter regulation, higher formation requirements, minimum share capital and heavier governance obligations. If the business wants growth but is concerned about regulatory burden, it may be better to start as a private limited company and re-register as a PLC later.
Mini-scenario: LLP not incorporated If the LLP has failed to file its incorporation documents, it has not been validly incorporated and therefore has no separate legal personality. The members may be treated as acting personally or in partnership, exposing them to personal liability for obligations entered into before incorporation. They should not hold themselves out as an LLP until incorporation is complete.
Mini-scenario: Articles not filed The resolution is valid because amendment of articles requires a special resolution and 80% exceeds the 75% threshold. However, the company has breached its filing obligations because the special resolution and amended articles should be filed at Companies House.
Mini-scenario: Resolution validity
a) The dividend resolution passed with 44% is not valid if shareholder approval is required, because an ordinary resolution requires more than 50%. Also, dividends must be supported by distributable profits.
b) Amending articles with 76% is valid because it exceeds the 75% special resolution threshold.
c) Reducing share capital with 80% satisfies the special resolution threshold, but the capital reduction procedure must also be followed.
d) Changing company name with 55% is not valid as it must be done by special resolution.
e) Removing a director with 60% is valid as an ordinary resolution, but special notice and the director’s representation rights must also be complied with.
f) Re-registering as a public company with 70% is not valid because it requires a special resolution.
Mini-scenario: New share allotment Pink Ltd
1) Do the director’s have authority to allot shares? the directors should first check the articles for restrictions, but directors of a private company with only one class of shares generally have authority to allot shares unless the articles say otherwise.
2) Do they need shareholder approval to? No as it is a private company with one class of shares.
3) Are there any pre-emption rights? Because the 500 ordinary shares are being issued for cash to a new outside investor, statutory pre-emption rights apply unless disapplied. The company must either offer the shares first to existing ordinary shareholders pro rata or disapply pre-emption rights by special resolution.
4) Procedure- The board should approve the allotment, issue the shares, update the register of members, issue a share certificate within 2 months, file SH01 within 1 month and update PSC/registers if needed.
Mini-scenario: PLC share buyback A PLC cannot buy back shares out of capital. It can fund the buyback using distributable profits or proceeds of a issue of new shares. For an off-market purchase, the buyback contract must be approved by ordinary resolution before completion, the selling shareholder should not vote, the shares must generally be fully paid, payment must usually be made on purchase, and the company must file the required Companies House forms and update its register.
Mini-scenario: Unregistered fixed charge The fixed charge over the property should have been registered at Companies House within the statutory deadline. Because it was not, the charge is void against the liquidator, administrator and creditors. The £200,000 debt remains valid, but the bank loses secured status and is treated as an unsecured creditor in the insolvenc y.
Mini-scenario: Loan or shares A bank loan avoids dilution and lets existing shareholders keep control, but creates repayment obligations and puts secured assets at risk. Issuing shares avoids repayment obligations and improves cash flow, but dilutes ownership, control, voting power and dividends. If control is the main concern, debt may be preferable. If repayment pressure is the concern, equity may be preferable.
Mini-scenario: Charge priority The later fixed charge over specific equipment will usually take priority over the earlier floating charge. However, this may change if the floating charge contained a valid negative pledge clause and the later lender had notice of it.
Mini-scenario: Unlawful dividend The dividend is unlawful to the extent it exceeded distributable profits. If management accounts overstated profits by £40,000, then up to £40,000 of the £100,000 dividend may be unlawful. Directors may be liable for breach of duty if they failed to take reasonable care in checking sufficient distributable profits existed. Shareholders may have to repay the unlawful amount if they knew or had reasonable grounds to believe it was unlawful. If received innocently, recovery may be harder.
Mini-scenario: Call general meeting A shareholder with 15% of voting shares can require directors to call a general meeting because they exceed the 5% threshold. They should send a valid request stating the general nature of the business, namely removal of the director. Directors must call the meeting within 21 days, and the meeting must be held within 28 days of this notice. To remove the director, an ordinary resolution is required, but special notice of 28 clear days must be given and the director has rights to make representations and be heard.
Mini-scenario: Shareholder conflict As a shareholder, she is generally allowed to vote in her own interests and does not usually owe fiduciary duties or have a general duty to declare her interest. However, if she is also a director, she must declare her interest as a director.
Mini-scenario: Partner contract authority The firm is bound if the partner had actual or apparent authority and acted in the ordinary course of the firm’s business. The firm may not be bound if the third party knew the partner lacked authority or the transaction was outside the ordinary course of business.
Mini-scenario: Viable insolvent company Administration is likely most appropriate if the company is insolvent but has a viable underlying business. It creates a moratorium and allows an administrator to try to rescue the company as a going concern or achieve a better result for creditors than liquidation. A CVA may also be possible if creditors will agree to a compromise, but administration gives stronger protection where creditors are already threatening action.
Mini-scenario: Liquidation payment order The usual order is: fixed charge holders, insolvency expenses, preferential creditors, secondary preferential creditors such as HMRC, floating charge holders subject to the prescribed part, unsecured creditors, then shareholders.
Mini-scenario: Undervalue transaction The sale of the £10,000 asset to a director’s husband for £7,500 is likely a transaction at an undervalue because the company received significantly less than market value. The director's husband is a connected person (as an associate of a director). As the transaction occurred 5 months before insolvency, it is within the relevant period. If the company was insolvent at the time of the sale, or became insolvent as a result, the liquidator can apply to the court to set the transaction aside. The court may order the husband to return the asset or pay the £2,500 shortfall (or other amount necessary to restore the company's position).
Mini-scenario: Sole trader tax A sole trader cannot normally deduct both actual allowable expenses and the £1,000 trading allowance. They should deduct actual allowable expenses from gross trading income (£60,000 - £10,000), giving trading profit of £50,000. Assuming no other income and full personal allowance: £50,000 − £12,570 = £37,430 taxable income. This falls within the basic rate band, so Income Tax at 20% is £7,486. Using the £1,000 trading allowance instead would be worse because it would give higher taxable income.
Mini-scenario: BPR taxable value The business is sold for £600,000 and £280,000 qualifies for Business Property Relief. The taxable value for IHT is therefore £320,000.
Mini-scenario: VAT payable Output VAT: £5,000 × 20% = £1,000. Input VAT: £2,000 × 20% = £400. VAT payable to HMRC: £1,000 − £400 = £600.
Mini-scenario: Chargeable gain Disposal proceeds are £100,000. Deduct original cost of £60,000 and legal fees on disposal of £2,000. Chargeable gain before any deductions (e.g. annual exemption) is £38,000. If the individual has their annual exemption amount available, deduct £3,000, leaving taxable gains of £35,000.
Mini-scenario: Corporation tax payable Revenue is £250,000. Expenditure is £70,000, but client entertaining of £6,000 and regulatory fine of £2,000 are disallowable. Deductible expenses are therefore £62,000 (£70,000 - £6,000). Profit before capital allowances is £250,000 - £62,000 = £188,000. Deduct capital allowances of £10,000, giving taxable profits of £178,000. At 25%, Corporation Tax is £44,500.
(Strictly, because £178,000 falls between £50,000 and £250,000, marginal relief may apply but the question will usually tell you to use the 25% tax rate).
Legal Services
Mini-scenario: Property purchase conflict A firm usually cannot act for both buyer and seller in the same property transaction because a clear conflict of interest arises. However, if the seller has not instructed the firm on this transaction, there may not be a direct conflict. The firm must still check whether it holds confidential information about the seller that is relevant to the buyer’s purchase. If it does, the solicitor should not act for the buyer. However, if no relevant confidential information is held and the risks can be managed, the firm may act for the buyer; otherwise, it should decline the instruction.
Mini-scenario: Unregulated will-writer Will-writing is not in itself a reserved legal activity, so a non-solicitor can legally draft a will. However, they will not be able to do probate activities, such as preparing probate papers or administering an estate as this is reserved.
Mini-scenario: Cash purchase funds This is a money laundering red flag. The solicitor must carry out enhanced due diligence, investigate the source of funds and source of wealth and verify the client's identity. If suspicion remains, a SAR should be made to the firm's MLRO and the transaction should not proceed until relevant consent is obtained.
Mini-scenario: Client asks about delayed transaction after SAR The solicitor must not reveal that a SAR has been made, as this could amount to tipping off. They should give a neutral explanation for the delay without disclosing the SAR or any suspicion.
Mini-scenario: Divorce client investment recommendation Recommending a specific investment fund is likely a regulated activity (advising on investments). Unless the solicitor is FCA-authorised or can rely on an exemption, they should not give this advice and should refer the client to an authorised adviser.
Mini-scenario: Executor selling shares FCA authorisation is not normally required. The solicitor can rely on the trustee/PR exclusion when selling the shares in their capacity as executor to administer the estate.
Mini-scenario: Personal injury claimant with limited means Legal aid is generally unavailable for personal injury claims.The solicitor should discuss a CFA, DBA, BTE insurance, ATE insurance. The most common option in personal injury claims is a CFA supported by ATE insurance.
Mini-scenario: 120% success fee The CFA is not enforceable because a success fee cannot exceed 100% of the solicitor's base costs. E.g. if the base costs are £10,000, the maximum success fee is £10,000. A 120% success fee would be £12,000 and therefore exceeds the statutory cap.
Mini-scenario: Refusing client because of religious beliefs Refusing to act solely because of the client's religion may amount to unlawful direct discrimination and may breach SRA principles requiring solicitors to act fairly and encourage equality, diversity and inclusion.
Mini-scenario: Male employee paid less than female colleagueThe employee may bring an equal pay claim under the Equality Act 2010. If the roles are equal work, the employer must justify the pay difference by a material factor unrelated to sex.
Legal System
Mini-scenario: Crown Court advocacy A solicitor without higher rights of audience cannot conduct advocacy in a Crown Court trial on indictment. They should instruct a barrister or a solicitor with rights.
Mini-scenario: High Court judge and Court of Appeal precedent Yes. The HC judge is bound to follow the Court of Appeal decision even if they think it was wrong. They may distinguish it if the material facts or legal issue differ. If it cannot be distinguished, they must apply it, although they may express doubts.
Mini-scenario: Cardiff environmental standards Environmental regulation is generally a devolved matter, so the Cardiff business must comply with a valid Senedd Act. However, if a valid Westminster Act conflicts with it, the Westminster Act will prevail.
Mini-scenario: Electric scooter Under the literal rule, an electric scooter is likely a "vehicle" because it is a means of transport. Under the golden rule, the court may depart from this meaning if including certain scooters would produce an absurd result. Under the mischief rule, the court would consider the problem Parliament intended to address, such as danger, nuisance or damage by vehicles in parks. Under the purposive approach, the outcome depends on whether the legislation was intended to prohibit all motorised transport or only larger road vehicles.
Mini-scenario: Treaty withdrawal and prerogative powers No. If withdrawal would remove rights recognised in domestic law, Parliament must authorise it. The prerogative cannot be used to alter domestic law or remove statutory rights (Miller No. 1).
Mini-scenario: Defamatory statement in Parliament The individual is unlikely to succeed because statements made in parliamentary proceedings are protected by parliamentary privilege.
Mini-scenario: Henry VIII clause A Henry VIII clause allows ministers to amend primary legislation using secondary legislation. This raises constitutional concerns because delegated legislation receives less parliamentary scrutiny than Acts of Parliament, despite being able to amend them. Concerns include excessive executive power, reduced accountability and limited parliamentary debate. The minister must also act within the scope of the parent Act, otherwise the legislation may be challenged as ultra vires.
Mini-scenario: Protest march restrictions The march is a procession and the organisers should give 6 clear days' notice unless this is not reasonably practicable. Giving only 5 days may breach this unless there is a good reason. The police may impose conditions under s.12 if they reasonably believe they are necessary to prevent serious disorder, damage to property, disruption to life of the community or intimidation. The organisers may challenge disproportionate restrictions, relying on Articles 10/ 11 ECHR.
Mini-scenario: Peaceful protester arrest Not necessarily. An arrest to prevent a breach of the peace is only lawful if violence is imminent or reasonably anticipated. Mere concern that others may react badly is unlikely to be sufficient without a genuine risk of violence.
Mini-scenario: Planning application refused Potential grounds include procedural impropriety because the applicant was not given a fair opportunity to make representations, and possibly illegality if the authority failed to follow required procedures.
Mini-scenario: Reversal of asylum policy Possibly. Individuals may argue they had a legitimate expectation that the published policy would continue for six months. The department may need to justify departing from the policy without notice.
Mini-scenario: Article 8 and incompatible statute If the statute cannot be interpreted compatibly under s.3 HRA, a higher court may issue a declaration of incompatibility under s.4. However, the legislation remains valid and enforceable unless Parliament amends it.
Mini-scenario: Care home A privately run care home contracted by a local authority may be a hybrid public authority when providing publicly arranged accommodation/care. If performing a public function, it must act compatibly with Article 8. The resident may argue that the eviction breached their right to respect for home and private life. If the care home's actions are purely private, the HRA may not apply directly.
Mini-scenario: 2024 statute conflicts with assimilated law The UK statute passed in 2024 prevails over assimilated EU law if there is a conflict. Assimilated law is domestic law retained for continuity, but under parliamentary sovereignty, later inconsistent primary legislation overrides assimilated law.
Mini-scenario: 2018 CJEU judgment A UK court is not generally bound by post-Brexit CJEU authority. However, a 2018 CJEU judgment is pre-Brexit case law and may form part of assimilated EU case law if relevant. It remains highly persuasive and lower courts will generally follow it. The Supreme Court and Court of Appeal may depart from assimilated EU case law.
FLK2 Mini-Scenario Answers
Criminal Liability
Mini-scenario: Robert threats Robert has likely committed common assault. Raising his fist and shouting threats caused Sam to feel scared and likely apprehend immediate unlawful violence. No physical contact or injury is needed, so this is assault rather than battery or ABH.
Mini-scenario: Ryan broken bottle GBH Likely s.18 wounding/GBH with intent. Ali suffered a deep wound requiring surgery and permanent scarring, which is clearly a wound because the skin was broken and is also likely GBH because it is really serious harm. Ryan’s intent to cause serious harm can be inferred from picking up a broken bottle, lunging at Ali, and saying “I’m going to seriously hurt you.” This shows serious harm was intended, not merely accidental or reckless.
Mini-scenario: Alex enters house and takes laptop Alex has clearly committed burglary under s.9(1)(b) because he entered as a trespasser by climbing through the window without permission and then stole the laptop. He may also have committed s.9(1)(a) if “see what’s worth taking” shows conditional intent to steal at the moment of entry which is probable. Theft of the laptop is also made out.
Mini-scenario: Zoe bin fire Arson and possibly aggravated arson. Zoe intentionally set fire to the bin and the flames spread to the café, so property was damaged by fire. She may not have intended to damage the café, but arson can be based on recklessness as to property damage, and a bin fire outside a building carries an obvious risk of spreading. Aggravated arson depends on whether she foresaw a risk to life from that damage. The fact she did not think anyone was inside helps her, but also shows she had considered possible occupation. If she foresaw a risk that someone could be endangered by the spreading fire and went ahead, aggravated arson is made out; if not, simple arson.
Mini-scenario: Claire unsecured shotgun Likely gross negligence manslaughter. Claire likely owes a duty of care because she was responsible for a loaded shotgun. Leaving it unsecured is a serious breach creating an obvious risk of death. The friend’s accidental firing may not break the chain because that type of accident is exactly the risk created by leaving a loaded weapon unsecured.
Mini-scenario: Lewis mortgage salary This is fraud by false representation under s.2. Lewis dishonestly made a false representation about his salary, knowing it was untrue or misleading with the intent to make a gain by obtaining a larger mortgage loan.
Mini-scenario: Glover self-defence mistake Possibly yes. Glover can rely on self-defence if she honestly believed she was about to be attacked, even if that belief was mistaken. However, the force used must still be reasonable in the circumstances as she believed them to be. A very hard push may be deemed excessive as the threat was only verbal, so the defence is fact-sensitive.
Mini-scenario: Jamie bank burglary Likely attempted burglary. Bringing tools and travelling to the bank are still preparation. However, once he reached the bank and had his hands on the door, he had passed the final stage of preparation and begun execution of the offence by trying to enter as a trespasser. He did not need to complete entry. Therefore, attempted burglary is made out.
Mini-scenario: Ella access code Ella is likely liable as a secondary party to Jake’s burglary/theft. She assisted by giving the access code and information, knowing Jake intended to steal goods. Because she intentionally assisted the commission of the offence, she can be liable as an accomplice.
Criminal Practice
Mini-scenario: Tom detention review Tom’s detention has not complied with PACE. Detention reviews must take place first within 6 hours of detention being authorised and then at intervals of no more than 9 hours. Tom was detained from 4pm Monday until 10pm Tuesday without any review, so this is a clear breach. Also, burglary is an indictable/either-way offence, so detention beyond 24 hours without charge required proper authorisation. If that authorisation was not obtained, Tom’s continued detention beyond 4pm on Tuesday was unlawful and can be challenged.
Mini-scenario: Luke poor-quality CCTV Usually a video identification procedure should be arranged if Luke is a known suspect and identification is disputed. Video id is the preferred procedure under Code D. However, if the CCTV is too poor for meaningful identification, it risks mistaken identification so the police should use fair Code D safeguards e.g. undergo a group identification procedure.
Mini-scenario: vulnerable adult no comment The solicitor must explain the right to silence, but also the risk of adverse inferences if the client later relies on facts he failed to mention when questioned. Because he is vulnerable, the solicitor must ensure an appropriate adult is present and that the client genuinely understands the caution, the questions and the consequences of silence.
Mini-scenario: Daniel bail while already on bail The court does not have to grant bail. There is a general right to bail, but it is subject to exceptions. Allegedly committing burglary while already on bail gives the prosecution a strong argument that there are substantial grounds to believe Daniel may commit further offences if released. The court could still grant conditional bail if conditions could adequately manage the risk.
Mini-scenario: Amy legal aid Likely yes. Merits: Robbery is indictable-only, so Amy’s case will be sent to the Crown Court. For Crown Court proceedings, the interests of justice test is automatically satisfied. Means: Amy’s £30,000 income means she would fail the magistrates’ court means test, but for a Crown Court trial she proceeds to the full means test. Her £8,000 savings are at the capital limit and may affect contribution, but do not automatically prevent representation. If her disposable income is below £3,398 she qualifies without needing to contribute; if it is £3,398–£37,500, she qualifies but must contribute. Therefore, she is likely eligible for a Crown Court representation order, subject to any contribution.
Mini-scenario: Ben sentencing range The case should be sent to the Crown Court. As at 2026, magistrates’ court’s sentencing powers are limited to 12 months for a single either-way offence. As the sentencing range is 16 months to 5 years, they should decline jurisdiction and send the matter to the Crown Court.
Mini-scenario: late CCTV disclosure The defence solicitor should urgently review the CCTV and consider whether further time is needed. If more time is needed, they should apply for an adjournment or further case management directions before trial. If admission would make the proceedings unfair, the defence may also consider an exclusion application.
Mini-scenario: previous convictions propensity The defence should oppose admission under the bad character rules by arguing the convictions do not genuinely show propensity, are too old/different, or have limited probative value. Even if a gateway is technically satisfied, the defence should ask the court to exclude the evidence if its prejudicial effect would make the trial unfair.
Mini-scenario: magistrates’ court legal error Defendant should appeal by way of case stated to the High Court, because the issue is that the magistrates’ court misapplied the law. The defendant must apply to the magistrates’ court within 21 days of the decision. The High Court may confirm, reverse or amend the decision, or remit the case with directions. Judicial review may be considered if the issue is broader procedural unfairness.
Mini-scenario: 15-year-old robbery with adult A youth is normally dealt with in the Youth Court, but robbery is a grave crime and the adult co-defendant may make joint allocation relevant. The court will consider whether the youth should be tried with the adult in the Crown Court or separately in the Youth Court. Sentencing will differ because youth sentencing focuses on welfare, rehabilitation, age, maturity and youth-specific disposals.
Trusts Law
Mini-scenario: Tom £50,000 friends trust Problematic. Tom has capacity and the written note satisfies the formality requirement. Certainty of intention is satisfied because “I hold £50,000 on trust” clearly shows intention to create a trust. Certainty of subject matter is likely satisfied because the trust property is identified as £50,000. Constitution is not an issue because Tom declared himself trustee, so no transfer needed. However, certainty of objects is problematic. For a discretionary trust, it must be possible to say whether any person is or is not within the class. “Friends” is likely too uncertain, so the trust may fail.
Mini-scenario: stock transfer before death Likely effective in equity. T executed the stock transfer form and delivered it to the company for registration, so T had made ‘every effort’ and done everything within his power to transfer shares. Although legal title had not passed because registration was incomplete before death, equity treats the transfer as effective. B therefore has the beneficial interest and can require T’s PRs/the company to complete registration.
Mini-scenario: beneficiaries aged 20–24 Yes, as all beneficiaries are over 18, if they have capacity and all consent, they can terminate the trust under Saunders v Vautier.
Mini-scenario: B reaches 25 B’s interest is contingent, not vested, because B only receives the property if they reach 25. If B dies before 25, the condition is not satisfied and the gift fails.
Mini-scenario: ethical business practices trust It may be capable of being charitable if framed as advancing education, citizenship or ethical standards for public benefit. But, as written, “promote ethical business practices among UK companies” is vague and may benefit private companies rather than the public. It is therefore not safely valid unless drafted more clearly as a recognised charitable purpose.
Mini-scenario: sports ground for employees Likely valid under Re Denley. Although it is expressed as a purpose, the purpose directly benefits ascertainable individuals: employees of X Ltd. It is not a normal charitable trust because of the personal nexus with employees, but it may be valid as a non-charitable purpose trust benefiting people.
Mini-scenario: A contributes £50,000 to property A presumed resulting trust arises. Because A contributed to the purchase price and the property is in B’s sole name with no discussion of ownership, equity presumes A did not intend a gift. B can rebut the presumption with evidence that the money was intended as a gift or loan.
Mini-scenario: presumptions
- Father to adult daughter: likely presumption of advancement, so presumed gift, but rebuttable.
- Wife paying for shares in husband’s name: traditionally no presumption of advancement from wife to husband, so the husband is presumed to hold the shares for the wife, unless rebutted.
- Friend’s car: no advancement, so the friend is presumed to hold the car on resulting trust for the payer unless evidence shows gift or loan.
Mini-scenario: joint names family home The starting point is equal beneficial ownership because the house is in joint names. B’s larger mortgage payments may support a claim to a larger share, but this is not assessed as a strict resulting trust. For a family home, the court looks at the parties’ common intention and their whole course of dealing, including household bills. Unless B can show a common intention that they should have unequal shares, the presumption of equal beneficial ownership is likely to remain.
Mini-scenario: “this will be yours one day” renovations B has a strong proprietary estoppel claim. A made express assurances, B relied on it by moving in, paying for major renovations and turning down a job abroad, and B suffered detriment (losing job salary). If it would be unconscionable for A to deny B an interest, the court can grant a remedy such as a share, a life interest or financial compensation.
Mini-scenario: third party helps trustee misapply funds Dishonest assistance. The trustee has breached trust by misapplying trust funds and the third party actively helped that breach. Because the third party did so knowingly, their conduct is dishonest. Therefore, the third party may be personally liable to compensate the trust for the loss caused.
Mini-scenario: trustee buys trust land Not permitted unless authorised by the trust instrument, court, or fully informed beneficiary consent. The self-dealing rule prevents trustees buying trust property even at market value. The sale is voidable by the beneficiaries.
Mini-scenario: investment without advice Likely a breach of trust. Trustees have power to invest, but they must comply with the statutory duty of care, consider suitability and diversification, and usually obtain proper advice. Investing trust money in speculative shares without advice fails to meet that standard, especially as the value fell drastically. The trustee may therefore be liable to compensate for the loss.
Mini-scenario: one trustee abroad, one acting alone Likely not properly administered. The absent trustee remains a trustee unless formally retired or removed, and trustees generally must act unanimously. The continuing trustee should not simply administer alone, especially where capital receipts or land are involved. A replacement or formal retirement/removal should be arranged.
Mini-scenario: Shruti school fees and capital advance The school fees are valid under the trustees’ power of maintenance because Shruti is 16 and income can be used for her education/benefit. The £25,000 capital advance may be valid if it is for Shruti’s advancement or benefit and within her prospective share. Liberty can object only if the trustees exceeded their powers or prejudiced her own entitlement.
Mini-scenario: wrong beneficiary £40,000 Breach of trust because the trustee paid trust money to the wrong person. The starting liability is to restore the £40,000, possibly with interest. Relief may be possible because the trustee acted honestly and took advice, but failure to check key documents may mean they did not act reasonably. The claim may be time-barred because more than six years have passed unless fraud applies.
Mini-scenario: tracing into car The beneficiaries can trace the £20,000 trust money into the mixed account and into the car. As the account already contained £5,000 of the trustee’s own money, the trustee is presumed to spend their own money first. Therefore, of the £15,000 used to buy the car, £5,000 is treated as the trustee’s money and £10,000 as trust money. The beneficiaries can claim a 2/3 beneficial share of the car, now worth £18,000, giving them £12,000, or an equitable lien for £10,000. They can also trace the remaining £10,000 trust money left in the account.
Wills and Administration of Estates
Mini-scenario: carer pressure The issue is undue influence and knowledge and approval. There is no presumed undue influence for wills, so actual coercion must be proved. Here, the carer benefits from the whole estate, was present at execution and applied pressure, which creates suspicious circumstances. If the pressure overbore the testator’s free will, the will or gift may be invalid.
Mini-scenario: unwitnessed handwritten note Invalid. A handwritten note changing a legacy is treated as an alteration or codicil. If it was made after the will was executed, it must comply with s.9, meaning it must be signed by the testator and witnessed by two witnesses. Merely pinning it to the will is not enough.
Mini-scenario: will to spouse then divorce Divorce does not revoke the whole will, but only the gifts to the former spouse as former spouses are generally treated as having died before the testator. Any gifts or appointments to the former spouse will therefore fail and falls into residue or intestacy.
Mini-scenario: spouse and two children, £600,000 estate The spouse takes personal chattels, the statutory legacy of £322,000, and half of the remaining residue. Residue = £600,000 − £322,000 = £278,000. Spouse gets half of that (£139,000), so spouse receives a total of £461,000 plus personal chattels. The children share the other £139,000 equally, so £69,500 each.
Mini-scenario: joint tenant dies The deceased’s share passes automatically to the surviving joint tenant by survivorship. It passes outside the estate and not under the will or intestacy, although it may still be relevant for IHT valuation.
Mini-scenario: £800,000 assets, £50,000 liabilities, one child The liabilities are deducted first, so the net estate is £750,000. Because the estate exceeds the nil-rate band amount, an IHT400 is required. Assuming no residence nil-rate band or other reliefs, IHT is £750,000 − £325,000 = £425,000 × 40% = £170,000. Some IHT must be paid before the grant, alongside the probate/letters of administration application.
Mini-scenario: PRs distribute early The PRs risk personal liability. They distributed within three months of the grant, did not place statutory notices, and distributed before the six-month 1975 Act claim period expired. Statutory notices may protect PRs against unknown creditors/beneficiaries if properly used, but they were not used here and they do not protect against a 1975 Act claim.
Mini-scenario: insolvent estate paid legacy first The PRs acted wrongly. Debts, funeral/testamentary expenses and liabilities must be paid before general legacies. As the estate proves insolvent, creditors must be paid ahead of general legacies. PRs may be personally liable to restore the amount wrongly paid.
Mini-scenario: partner and adult child 1975 Act The partner can apply because they lived with D as D’s partner for at least two years immediately before death. However, the claim was brought eight months after the grant, so it is outside the six-month time limit and requires the court’s permission. The adult child can also apply as D’s child, and possibly as a dependant if D financially supported them. However, adult child claims are harder to establish.
Mini-scenario: IHT £400,000 gift four years before death The £400,000 failed PET is taxed first and uses the nil-rate band. If the current year and previous year annual exemptions are available, deduct £6,000, leaving a chargeable gift of £394,000. The £325,000 nil-rate band covers the first £325,000, leaving £69,000 taxable. Tax before taper relief is £69,000 × 40% = £27,600. Because death occurred four years after the gift, taper relief reduces the tax by 40%, so tax on the gift is £16,560. The estate has no nil-rate band left, so £500,000 × 40% = £200,000. Total IHT is therefore £216,560, ignoring other reliefs.
Mini-scenario: CGT on sale during administration The executors/PRs pay CGT on the gain arising during administration. The base cost is the probate value, so the gain is £50,000. Assuming the PRs can use the £3,000 annual exempt amount, the chargeable gain is £47,000. For disposals by PRs on or after 6 April 2026, the CGT rate is 24%, so the estate pays £47,000 × 24% = £11,280.
Mini-scenario: D 2026 estate, home, company shares and lifetime gifts The unlisted trading company shares qualify for 100% Business Relief so the £200,000 shares are fully relieved. The £100,000 charity gift is exempt. The £250,000 gift to the friend uses £250,000 of the nil-rate band; the £150,000 gift to the child then uses the remaining £75,000, leaving £75,000 taxable at 40% = £30,000. No taper applies because it was only two years before death. On the estate, chargeable assets are £800,000 − £200,000 BPR = £600,000. The home is left to a child, so RNRB of £175,000 is available. With no NRB left, estate IHT is £600,000 − £175,000 = £425,000 × 40% = £170,000. Total IHT = £200,000.
Land Law
Mini-scenario: Liam formalities
- No legal lease. Maya does not receive the legal freehold because transfer of a legal estate requires a deed and registration. The signed written contract may create an equitable interest.
- Noah’s 6-year lease must be by deed because it is for more than 3 years, which is satisfied. However, because Noah only moves in 4 months later, it may be a reversionary lease taking effect more than 3 months after grant. If so, it must also be registered to be legal.
- Legal lease. Olivia’s 2-year oral lease can be legal without deed because it is for 3 years or less, takes effect in possession immediately, is at market rent, and there is no premium. Those requirements are satisfied because she moves in immediately and pays market rent.
Mini-scenario: registered title and 3-year outhouse lease The registered restrictive covenant and legal charge bind the buyer because they appear on the register. The neighbour’s 3-year lease may also bind because a lease for 3 years or less, taking effect in possession at market rent, can be legal without deed or registration. If the neighbour is in occupation, it may also have overriding protection.
Mini-scenario: Priority Priority between Bank A and B is determined by registration order, so Bank A’s 2018 registered charge ranks ahead of Bank B’s 2021 registered charge. The third party’s unregistered interest can bind a purchaser only if they have a proprietary interest protected by actual occupation. Actual occupation is strongly shown because they have lived there continuously for 4 years and their belongings are all over the house. However, they must also prove an underlying proprietary right, such as a beneficial interest. If so, it may override and bind the purchaser; if not, it will not.
Mini-scenario: Alex unregistered land charge Yes, Alex is bound as the restrictive covenant was registered as a land charge against the estate owner’s name. In unregistered land, properly registered land charges bind purchasers even if they failed to search and had no actual knowledge.
Mini-scenario: unregistered equitable mortgage and restrictive covenant The unregistered equitable mortgage is void against a purchaser of a legal estate for money or money’s worth because it should have been protected by land charge registration. The restrictive covenant was registered as a land charge, so it binds the purchaser.
Mini-scenario: Anna and Ben severance The legal joint tenancy is not severed, but the beneficial joint tenancy could be severed by Ben’s letter if it clearly communicates immediate severance and is effectively served. After severance, they hold as tenants in common. Because the property was bought in joint names, the starting point is 50/50, despite Anna’s larger contribution, unless she proves a different common intention.
Mini-scenario: pathway written but no deed Yes, the right likely amounts to an express easement. There is dominant land, the neighbour’s land, and servient land, the homeowner’s retained land. The pathway benefits the neighbour’s land by giving access to the road, the land is owned by different people, and a right of way is capable of being an easement. However, it is not legal because it was not granted by deed. As the agreement was in a written, signed document, it may take effect as an equitable easement
Mini-scenario: pathway used for 25 years Yes, likely an easement by prescription. The homeowner used the path openly, continuously, without force, without secrecy and without permission for over 20 years. The neighbour knowing and ignoring it supports prescription rather than defeating it.
Mini-scenario: commercial lease assignment with AGA The new tenant is liable for rent as the current tenant. The original tenant is also liable under the AGA because the landlord’s consent was given on that condition. The landlord can sue for rent arrears, pursue the AGA, consider forfeiture if the lease allows, and potentially use CRAR for commercial rent arrears.
Mini-scenario: café lease and redevelopment The tenant has security of tenure because it occupies for business purposes and the lease was not contracted out of the LTA 1954. The landlord can oppose renewal on redevelopment ground s.30(1)(f) if it has a genuine, settled intention and reasonable prospect of carrying out substantial works that require possession. The landlord must serve a s.25 notice giving 6–12 months’ notice.
Mini-scenario: 1995 lease repair breach This is an old lease, so pre-1996 rules apply. Tenant A, the original tenant, remains liable on the original contractual covenants for the whole term. Tenant D is liable as current assignee under privity of estate for leasehold covenants that touch and concern the land, including repair. B and C are generally not liable for D’s later breach after assignment, unless there are separate indemnity obligations.
Property Practice
Mini-scenario: no business use covenant Advise the buyer not to exchange until this is resolved. Running a studio from home may breach the restrictive covenant, risking injunction, damages and title issues. Check the wording, who can enforce it, and whether the proposed use is materially business use. Protections include consent/release, indemnity insurance, variation, s.84 LPA application, price renegotiation, or changing the intended use.
Mini-scenario: CON29 stopping-up order The risk is loss or alteration of highway access, future access problems, reduced value, planning issues and lender concerns. Before exchange, obtain the order and plan, check whether access to the property is affected, raise additional enquiries, inspect, report to the client/lender, and consider a special condition, indemnity, price reduction or withdrawal if access is unsafe.
Mini-scenario: insurance on risk from exchange Arrange buildings insurance to start from exchange, not completion. Confirm the policy satisfies the mortgage offer, covers the reinstatement value, notes the lender’s interest, and remains in place during the long exchange-to-completion gap. Also confirm who is insuring under the contract and report clearly to the client and lender.
Mini-scenario: fire after exchange and deposit as agent Under the Standard Conditions, risk usually passes to the buyer on exchange unless varied. So if the property is damaged by fire before completion, the buyer may still have to complete at the full price and claim on insurance. Because the deposit is held as agent, the seller can use it before completion so the amount is not protected. If the seller defaults or becomes insolvent, the buyer is at greater risk than if it were held as stakeholder. The VAT point should also have been dealt with expressly before exchange because an option to tax can create an additional VAT liability.
Mini-scenario: seller lender delay releasing charge The buyer’s solicitor should rely on the seller’s solicitor’s undertaking to redeem the mortgage and arrange for the charge to be removed from the title, usually by e-DS1/DS1, under the Code for Completion by Post. If the charge cannot be discharged, completion should not proceed without proper undertakings. The buyer may claim contractual compensation/interest from the contractual completion date. If the delay continues, the buyer may serve a notice to complete, making time of the essence and allowing rescission if the seller still fails to complete.
Mini-scenario: buyer fails after notice to complete The seller can rescind after the notice period expires and keep/forfeit the deposit. They can also claim damages for loss caused by the breach, including loss of profit on resale, wasted costs and interest/contractual compensation. However, the seller must attempt to mitigate loss.
Mini-scenario: discounted underlease Check the alienation clause first. The lease may prohibit underletting, require landlord consent, or only allow underletting at market rent, so a discounted rent may breach the lease. Also check whether underletting part is allowed, any required terms of the underlease, and whether superior landlord or lender consent is needed. A licence to underlet should be obtained before completion.
Mini-scenario: 8-year underlease with premium The underlease must be completed by deed. SDLT may be payable on the premium and possibly rent/net present value, with filing and payment within 14 days of the effective date. Because the term is over 7 years, it must be registered at HM Land Registry. Notices/licences required by the headlease must also be served.
Mini-scenario: assignment delayed by landlord consent Do not complete the assignment without landlord’s consent, as this would be a wrongful assignment and breach of the lease. Provide the landlord with all reasonable information requested and chase consent urgently. Because consent must not be unreasonably withheld or delayed, the landlord may breach its duty if the delay is unjustified. If the landlord continues to delay unreasonably, the tenant may seek a declaration or damages. To manage completion risk, completion should be conditional on obtaining a licence to assign, or the parties should agree to extend the completion date.
Mini-scenario: consent to underlet conditions Reasonable conditions may include payment of landlord’s legal costs, underlease by deed, undertenant covenants, no security of tenure, use restrictions, rent not below market, and a guarantor/rent deposit where justified. Conditions may be challenged if they are excessive, unrelated to the landlord and tenant relationship, imposed for collateral advantage, or cause unreasonable delay.
Mini-scenario: repair breach, Jervis v Harris and forfeiture If the lease contains a Jervis v Harris clause, the landlord should first serve the required repair notice specifying the breach and giving the tenant time to remedy it. If the tenant fails to comply, the landlord may enter, carry out the works and recover the cost as a debt. This is often safer than forfeiture because it avoids needing to prove loss. For forfeiture, the lease must contain a forfeiture clause and the landlord must avoid waiver, such as demanding or accepting rent after knowing of the breach. The landlord must serve a valid s.146 notice specifying the repair breach, requiring remedy within a reasonable time, and requiring compensation if appropriate. Main risks: waiver, defective notice, insufficient time to repair, statutory protection and relief from forfeiture.
Mini-scenario: business lease renewal and redevelopment The tenant has LTA 1954 security because it occupies for business and the lease was not contracted out. The landlord must serve a s.25 notice giving 6–12 months’ notice and stating the ground of opposition, here s.30(1)(f) redevelopment. The tenant can challenge this, but must apply to court before the termination date in the s.25 notice to preserve its right to a new lease. The landlord must prove a firm intention and realistic ability to carry out substantial works requiring possession. If successful, the tenant will not get a new lease but may receive statutory compensation at one times the rateable value of the premises, or two times the rateable value if the tenant has occupied for 14 years or more.
Mini-scenario: rear extension 5 years ago Because the extension was built 5 years ago, it was likely substantially completed before 25 April 2024. The old 4-year immunity rule may therefore apply, meaning enforcement risk may now be low. The safest remedy is to apply for a lawful development certificate.
Mini-scenario: SDLT Kiera £400,000 SDLT = £10,000. Calculation: 0% on first £125,000 = £0; 2% on next £125,000 = £2,500; 5% on remaining £150,000 = £7,500. Total = £10,000. The SDLT return and payment are due within 14 days of the effective date, usually completion.
Mini-scenario: CGT/PRR former main residence PRR applies to the period the property was the individual’s only or main residence, plus the final 9 months of ownership. The two-year absence may also qualify as deemed occupation if the statutory conditions are satisfied (absence within 3 years) and they occupied the property as their main residence before and after the absence. Any non-qualifying period is chargeable, subject to allowable costs, annual exemption and any available relief.
Solicitors Accounts
Mini-scenario: cheque for bill and unpaid disbursements This is a mixed receipt. The firm should allocate the money promptly between business money and client money. The amount for the outstanding bill is business money once properly billed. The amount for disbursements not yet paid should usually remain client money until used. If the cheque cannot be split immediately, pay it into client account first and promptly transfer the business element to business account.
Mini-scenario: £500 on account of costs This is client money because it is money paid on account of costs before the work has been done and billed. It should be paid into the client account and kept separate from business money.
.
Mini-scenario: T-accounts £2,400 and £400 expert fee
Account/Ledger Entries
Cash Account (Client Side) DR £2,400 / CR £400
Client Ledger (Client Side) DR £400 / CR £2,400
.
Mini-scenario: debit/credit table (NOTE: The full double-entry is shown here for clarity. For each transaction, there is a matching debit and credit entry. The answer may be shown in either entry, provided the DR/CR treatment and the account or ledger identified are correctly matched.)
Transaction 1
DR £1,000/CR £1,000
DR Client Cash Account / CR Client Ledger
Transaction 2
DR £200 / CR £200
DR Client Ledger / CR Client Cash Account
Transaction 3
DR £960 / CR £960
DR Client Business Ledger / CR Business Ledger
Transaction 4
DR £960 / CR £960
DR Business Cash Account/ CR Client Cash Account
Transaction 5
DR £250,000 / CR £250,000
DR Client Ledger/ CR Client Cash Account
Transaction 6
DR £50 / CR £50
DR Client Cash Account / CR Client Ledger
Transaction 7
DR £300 / CR £300
DR Business Cash Account / CR Client Cash Account
.
Mini-scenario: £200 bank reconciliation discrepancy The firm must investigate immediately, compare the bank statement, cash book and client ledgers, identify the cause, and correct the records. If there is a client account shortage, it must be replaced promptly with firm money. The breach should be recorded, reported internally to the COFA, and reported to the SRA if material.
Mini-scenario: repeated small client account transfers This is likely a reportable breach. Even if each shortage is small, repeated transfers between client accounts over months show a pattern and possible systemic failure. Using money between client accounts to correct shortfalls risks using one client’s money for another, which is serious. The COFA should not merely record them; they must ensure prompt remedy, maintain proper records, escalate internally and report to the SRA if material. Here, the frequency and pattern make it likely material, so the COFA should report it.
Mini-scenario: use of client money for another client There has been a breach because one client’s money was used for another client’s disbursement. Correcting it with firm money promptly was the right remedy. A single accidental breach corrected immediately is likely non-material so may not need reporting to the SRA, but it must still be recorded and considered by the COFA.