Before the introduction of the SQE, the SRA offered the QLTS (Qualified Lawyers Transfer Scheme), a similar bar admission test for foreign lawyers. Since Kaplan was responsible for developing and administering the QLTS, its sample questions are useful for SQE1 preparation, as both exams share a similar scope and format.

Questions

Kaplan QLTS MCT Sample Questions and Answers

Answers and Explanations

Question 1

FLK1/2 - Legal Ethics

The correct answer is A.

1. Duty to the Court Overrides Client Interest: Solicitors have a paramount duty to uphold the integrity of the legal system and not mislead the court. Under the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) Principles, solicitors must prioritize the "proper administration of justice" (Principle 1) and act with integrity (Principle 2), even if doing so may disadvantage their client.

2. Materiality of the Case: If the recent case is binding or highly relevant to the legal issues at hand, the solicitor cannot withhold it, as this would allow the court to proceed on an incomplete or incorrect understanding of the law. Failing to disclose such a precedent could compromise the fairness of the trial.

3. Client Instructions Are Secondary: While solicitors must act in the client’s best interests (Principle 4), this cannot override their duty to the court. The client cannot instruct the solicitor to withhold material legal authorities, and the solicitor must not collude in misleading the court (even by omission).

4. Evaluating the options:

B. (Present arguments without the case) would involve misleading the court.

C. (Cease to act) and **E** (Suggest alternative representation) are unnecessary unless a conflict arises that prevents compliance with professional obligations.

D. (Follow client’s instructions) ignores the solicitor’s overriding duty to the court.

Thus, the solicitor must inform the court of the recent case to ensure the trial’s fairness and uphold their ethical obligations.

Question 2

FLK1 - Business Law - Taxation

The correct answer is C.

To calculate the taxable profit for corporation tax purposes, we follow this process:

Step 1: Start with trading receipts (turnover)

Trading receipts: £750,000

Step 2: Add any chargeable (taxable) gains

Gain from land sale: £25,000
Total income: £750,000 + £25,000 = £775,000

Step 3: Deduct allowable expenses

Allowable expenses:

Raw materials: £35,000
Wages: £345,000
General production costs: £3,500
Total expenses: £35,000 + £345,000 + £3,500 = £383,500

Step 4: Calculate taxable profit

Taxable profit = £775,000 – £383,500 = £391,500

Correct answer: C. £391,500

Question 3

FLK1 - Contract Law

The correct answer is A.

The core legal issue here is whether the new agreement to accept reduced payments (£1,000/month for 24 months) is enforceable, or whether the bank can insist on the original repayment terms (£3,000/month).

Key legal concepts involved:

1. Consideration: For a variation of contract terms to be enforceable, there must usually be fresh consideration.

2. Promissory estoppel: Even without consideration, if one party makes a clear promise, and the other relies on it to their detriment, the first party may be estopped (legally prevented) from going back on it — but only temporarily and usually with reasonable notice.

What happened:

A binding contract: £3,000/month loan repayment.
The borrower couldn’t pay, so he proposed a reduced payment (£1,000/month for 24 months).
The bank agreed, and he started paying.
Later, the bank demands a return to the original agreement immediately.

Evaluating the options:

A is correct. The bank may be estopped from demanding the original payments immediately if the borrower relied on the bank’s promise, e.g., by staying open and repainting the restaurant. However, promissory estoppel doesn’t extinguish the debt — it merely suspends it. The bank can return to the original terms but must give reasonable notice.

Question 4

FLK1 - Tort Law

The correct answer is B.

This question relates to the standard of care in professional negligence, specifically for medical professionals.

The legal test that applies here is the Bolam test, from the case Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957].

The Bolam test says:

A doctor is not negligent if they act in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical professionals skilled in that particular art — even if others disagree.

Evaluating the options:

A is incorrect: The law doesn’t require the highest possible standard, just a reasonable professional one.

B is correct: This describes the Bolam test — the doctor must act in a manner acceptable to a rational and responsible body of medical professionals.

C is incorrect: The standard is based on professional practice, not the opinion of the judge or which expert the judge prefers.

D is incorrect: While staying informed is good practice, the law doesn’t mandate acting on the latest research if it isn’t widely accepted yet.

E is incorrect: The test is not based on majority opinion, but on whether a responsible body would support the conduct.

Question 5

FLK2 - Land Law

The correct answer is C.

This question is about co-ownership of land, especially how ownership is split in law and in equity.

Key legal principles:

1. At law, land can only be held as joint tenants (Legal co-ownership must be a joint tenancy) — see Law of Property Act 1925, s.1(6).

2. In equity, co-owners can hold the land as either joint tenants or tenants in common, depending on intention and circumstances.

3. Where property is purchased for business purposes, courts presume a tenancy in common in equity, even if all co-owners contributed equally.

This is based on the principle that in a commercial relationship, people usually intend to own distinct shares (unlike in family/personal settings where joint tenancy may be more common).

Evaluating the options:

A: Incorrect – Joint tenancy in equity is unlikely in a business context.

B: Incorrect – Legal title must be joint tenancy.

C: Correct – They are joint tenants in law (as required) but tenants in common in equity due to the commercial purpose.

D: Incorrect – Age is irrelevant to the form of co-ownership.

E: Incorrect – Land can be held as joint tenants.

Question 6

FLK1 - Public Law

The correct answer is C.

This question concerns judicial review and the requirement for standing — i.e., whether someone has the right to bring a legal challenge against a public decision.

Key principle: Standing (locus standi)

Under s.31(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, a claimant must have “sufficient interest” in the matter to which the application relates to bring a judicial review.

The courts interpret “sufficient interest” with some flexibility, but they do not allow challenges from individuals who are not personally, directly, or specially affected, unless they represent a recognized group or serious public interest (e.g., pressure groups or affected communities).

Application to this scenario:

The retired doctor:
Lives 250 miles away
Has no personal or local connection
Is not part of a recognised group
Is not directly affected

Even though she has professional experience, that alone is not sufficient to establish standing.

Evaluate the options:

A: Close, but not entirely accurate — standing isn’t strictly limited to local residents.

B: Not entirely right — being in a pressure group can help, but is not essential.

C: Correct – She does not have sufficient interest in the matter to bring a judicial review.

D: Incorrect – Absence of local challenge doesn’t give her standing.

E: Incorrect – Her experience isn’t enough without a personal stake or direct impact.

Question 7

FLK2 - Criminal Law

The correct answer is E.

This question tests your understanding of the offence of robbery, under section 8 of the Theft Act 1968.

Robbery occurs when:

A person steals, and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, they use force or put or seek to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force.

Let’s apply that to this scenario:

The boy stole the phone
He threatened force (“I will stab you with a knife”)
The threat was made immediately before the theft
The threat was made in order to steal the phone

Note: Actual physical force is not required — a threat of force is enough.

Evaluating the options:

A: Incorrect – Actual force is not required; threat is enough.

B: Incorrect – Consent obtained under threat does not negate theft or robbery.

C: Incorrect – Robbery involves dishonesty as part of theft, and deception isn’t required.

D: Incorrect – There’s no evidence he used a weapon, only threatened with one.

E: Correct – All elements of robbery are present: theft, threat of force, immediately before, and in order to steal.

Question 8

FLK1 - Business Law

The correct answer is D.

This question is about the rights and role of a shareholder in a small private company.

Key facts about shareholders:

A shareholder is an owner of the company.

They are not automatically involved in the day-to-day management — that’s the role of directors.

Shareholders have certain rights, including:

Voting on key decisions (e.g. changes to the constitution, appointment/removal of directors, approving dividends).

Receiving dividends if declared (i.e., if profits allow).

They are not paid a salary unless they are also directors or employees.

Evaluating the options:

A: Incorrect – Shareholders are not advisers and don’t earn a salary unless employed.

B: Incorrect – Same issue: shareholders are not advisers.

C: Incorrect – Shareholders do not automatically run the business.

D: Correct – Shareholders are owners, may vote on key decisions, and can receive dividends.

E: Incorrect – While many shareholders are passive, they can vote on certain decisions — they do have some influence.

Question 9

(This question falls outside the scope of the SQE.)

The correct answer is B.

This question is testing the definition of a “worker” under EU law, especially under Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which guarantees free movement of workers.

Key test: The Lawrie-Blum test (from Lawrie-Blum v Land Baden-Württemberg [1986])

According to this test, a person is a worker if:

1. They perform services for and under the direction of another,

2. In return for remuneration, and

3. The work is genuine and effective, not marginal or ancillary.

Importantly, remuneration doesn’t have to meet minimum wage.

Part-time work still counts.

Receiving charitable support does not disqualify someone.

The focus is on whether the work is real and of economic value, not the motivation or context.

Let’s review the options:

A: Incorrect – Charitable support doesn’t disqualify him.

B: Correct – He is performing work of economic value, even if part-time and underpaid.

C: Incorrect – There is no requirement to earn the minimum wage to qualify as a worker.

D: Incorrect – Part-time workers can still be workers under EU law.

E: Incorrect – The reason for working (e.g. for qualification) is not determinative.

Question 10

FLK1 - Public Law

The correct answer is B.

This question concerns the UK constitution and the use of prerogative powers in matters of defence and foreign affairs, specifically the deployment of armed forces abroad.

Key constitutional principles:

The deployment of armed forces is a matter that traditionally falls under the Royal Prerogative, exercised by the executive (the Prime Minister and Cabinet).

There is no statutory requirement for Parliamentary approval before deploying troops.

However, in recent years, a constitutional convention has developed: the government seeks the support of the House of Commons before committing troops to combat (e.g., Iraq 2003, Syria 2013).

This convention is not legally binding, and can be bypassed, but politically significant.

Evaluating the options:

A: Incorrect – There is no statute requiring Commons approval.

B: Correct – The power is a prerogative, and Commons support is sought by convention, not law.

C: Incorrect – The Lords are not required to approve deployment by statute or convention.

D: Incorrect – The power still falls within prerogative powers.

E: Incorrect – Again, not outside prerogative, and no statutory approval is required.

Question 11

FLK2 - Solicitors Account

The correct answer is A.

Question 12

FLK1 - Business Law - Taxation

The correct answer is D.

To calculate the man’s Capital Gains Tax (CGT) liability, let’s break it down step by step.

Given:

Taxable income: £32,500
Chargeable gains (after exemption): £20,000
Basic rate band: £0–£37,500
CGT rates for shares (assuming these are not in a business context):
10% within basic rate band
20% above basic rate band

Step 1: Work out how much of the basic rate band is left

Basic rate band = £37,500
Taxable income = £32,500
Remaining basic rate band for CGT = £37,500 - £32,500 = £5,000

Step 2: Apply CGT rates to the gains

First £5,000 of gains taxed at 10% = £500
Remaining £15,000 taxed at 20% = £3,000

Step 3: Add both parts

£500 (10% portion) + £3,000 (20% portion) = £3,500

Question 13

FLK2 - Wills - Taxation

The correct answer is E.

Question 14

The correct answer is B.

In a claim for private nuisance, the court applies a test to determine whether there has been an unreasonable interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of their land.

Key elements of private nuisance:

• The interference must be unreasonable and must affect the claimant’s use or enjoyment of their property.

• Courts will consider factors such as:

• Nature of the interference (e.g., whether it’s noise, smell, or vibration).

• The locality of the affected land (e.g., industrial or residential areas).

• The duration and frequency of the interference.

• Whether the activity causing the nuisance is reasonable in the context of the area.

Evaluating the options:

A. Incorrect – The test for private nuisance is about the impact on the use or enjoyment of property, not the personal discomfort of those working in the premises.

B. Correct – The location (industrial estate) is relevant. In an industrial estate, some odours may be more acceptable than in a residential area, so the court will consider the nature of the area in deciding whether the interference is unreasonable.

C. Incorrect – Malice is not a requirement for private nuisance claims. The focus is on whether the interference is unreasonable.

D. Incorrect – Physical injury is not required for a private nuisance claim. It’s about unreasonable interference with use or enjoyment of land, not personal injury.

E. Incorrect – The intensity of the odour over time could be relevant, but it is not the primary test in determining unreasonable interference. The focus is on the overall unreasonableness of the interference.

Question 15

FLK2 - Criminal Law

The correct answer is D.

In this scenario, the man has entered the house without permission with the intention to steal, but he left without committing theft or causing damage.

Let’s evaluate the options:

A. This is incorrect. Aggravated burglary occurs when a person commits burglary while being in possession of a weapon or causing injury. In this case, the man has no weapon and does not cause injury, so this is not the correct offence.

B. This is incorrect. Attempted burglary is an offence when a person attempts to commit burglary but is unsuccessful (e.g., leaves before taking anything or causing damage). This could seem like a possibility because the man intended to steal but did not succeed in doing so. However, attempted burglary generally requires a substantial step towards completing the crime, which the man did not take because he left the premises immediately. Therefore, this option is unlikely.

C. This is incorrect. Aggravated trespass involves trespassing with the intention to disrupt a lawful activity, such as obstructing a police officer, disrupting a hunt, etc. The man’s conduct doesn’t involve an intention to disrupt any lawful activity, so this does not apply.

D. This is correct. Burglary requires entry into a building as a trespasser with the intent to commit theft, cause grievous bodily harm, or cause damage. In this case, the man entered the house with the intention to steal, but he did not take anything or cause damage. This seems like an incomplete burglary because the man left without completing the theft. While burglary requires the intention to commit theft, it is still considered burglary if the person enters with the intention to steal and is trespassing.

E. This is incorrect. Trespass involves entering property without permission, but it doesn’t require any criminal intent like theft or causing harm. In this case, the man entered the property unlawfully, but the intention to steal elevates the offence beyond mere trespass.

Question 16

FLK2 - Land Law

The correct answer is C.

When dealing with unregistered land in the context of a second legal charge, the solicitor needs to ensure that the bank’s interest is properly protected.

1. A. The solicitor should register the interest at the Land Charges Registry as an estate contract.

Estate contract applies to agreements to convey land, not mortgages or charges. This is not the correct option for a second legal charge.

2. B. The solicitor should register the interest at the Land Charges Registry as a restrictive covenant.

• Restrictive covenants involve agreements that restrict the use of land in some way (e.g., preventing building). A mortgage does not create a restrictive covenant, so this is not correct.

3. C. The solicitor should register the interest at the Land Charges Registry as a puisne mortgage.

• A puisne mortgage is a second mortgage (in priority after the first). It should be registered in the Land Charges Registry to give the bank priority over other creditors in case of default. This is the correct option for protecting the bank’s interest.

4. D. The solicitor should register the interest at the Land Charges Registry as a limited owner’s charge.

• A limited owner’s charge typically applies to land owned by someone with limited rights (such as a life tenant), and is not relevant in this case.

5. E. The solicitor should register the interest at the Land Charges Registry as a general equitable charge.

• A general equitable charge provides a form of protection but does not give the bank the priority over other creditors in the same way that a puisne mortgage does.

Correct answer: C. The solicitor should register the interest at the Land Charges Registry as a puisne mortgage.

Question 17

FLK2 - Trust Law.

The correct answer is D.

Question 18

FLK1 - Business Law

The correct answer is C.

The situation involves a partnership agreement that specifies contracts over a certain value (£10,000) require the signatures of two partners. In this case, one partner signed a contract for stock worth £12,000 without consulting the other partners.

Let’s break down the possible liabilities:

A. This option is incorrect because the partnership is still legally bound by the contract made by one of its partners, even if the partner acted in breach of the partnership agreement. The supplier has provided goods, and the partnership is still responsible for payment.

B. The partnership is liable to pay the full £12,000 as per the contract signed by the partner. There is no reason why only £10,000 would be applicable. The partnership would be liable for the whole amount unless the contract was invalid.

C. The partnership is liable to pay the supplier £12,000.

Correct answer. Despite the breach of the partnership agreement (only one partner signed), the partnership is still bound by the contract made by the partner. In the absence of a specific limitation, the partnership would typically be liable for the full value of the contract (£12,000), as the partner acted within the scope of their role as a partner in the business.

D. The partner who signed the contract is personally liable to pay the supplier £12,000.

This is not necessarily correct. While the partner may have breached the partnership agreement, they are acting within their authority as a partner. This means the partnership, not the individual partner, is typically liable for the full amount, unless the other partners agree to pursue the signing partner personally.

E. The partnership is liable to pay the supplier £10,000 and the partner who signed the contract is personally liable to pay the supplier £2,000.

This option is incorrect. There is no basis in law for the partnership only being liable for £10,000. The partner who signed the contract is not automatically personally liable for the £2,000 difference.

Question 19

(This question falls outside the scope of the SQE.)

The correct answer is B.

Question 20

FLK1 - Legal Service

The correct answer is E.

In this scenario, the firm of solicitors is considering acting for both the new client and the lender in respect of the acquisition. The firm must carefully assess whether there is any conflict of interest and ensure that both clients understand the risks and issues involved. The clients are both capable of understanding the situation, and the firm explains the potential issues.

The key issue here is whether the firm can act for both parties, which requires the informed consent of both the new client and the lender. Let’s break down the options:

A. Whether the lender will be prepared to give informed consent in writing to the firm advising the new client in this matter.

Incorrect. This option only focuses on the lender’s informed consent. The problem is that both clients (the lender and the new client) need to give informed consent, not just the lender. Therefore, this is not sufficient on its own.

B. Whether the new client will be instructing the same fee earner as the lender. • Incorrect. While it is important for the firm to ensure that there are no conflicts of interest between the individuals advising each client, simply instructing the same fee earner is not the determining factor. The real issue is whether both clients give informed consent to the firm acting for both parties in this situation.

C. Whether the new client will be instructing the corporate group or the finance group of the firm. • Incorrect. The decision about which group is handling the matter (corporate vs. finance) does not determine whether the firm can act for both the lender and the new client. The focus here is on informed consent and managing conflicts of interest, not which group handles the matter.

D. Whether the new client will be prepared to give informed consent in writing to the firm advising the lender in this matter.

Incorrect. This option only considers the new client’s consent for the firm to advise the lender, but it does not address the need for both the lender and the new client to give informed consent for the firm to act for both parties. Both clients must agree to the firm representing them.

E. Whether both the lender and the new client will be prepared to give informed consent in writing to the firm advising both clients in this matter.

Correct answer. The firm can act for both the lender and the new client only if both parties give informed consent in writing. This ensures that the clients are fully aware of the potential conflicts of interest and the risks involved in the firm acting for both of them. Informed consent from both clients is essential to comply with ethical standards and professional conduct rules.

Correct answer: E.

For the firm to act for both the lender and the new client, both clients must give their informed consent in writing. This addresses the potential conflicts of interest and ensures that both parties understand the risks of the firm representing both sides in the acquisition.

Question 21

(This question falls outside the scope of the SQE.)

The correct answer is A.

Question 22

FLK1 - Contract Law

The correct answer is D.

Under the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943, when a contract is frustrated (for example, if the performance of the contract becomes impossible due to unforeseen circumstances), the general rule is that the contract is discharged and the parties are released from further obligations. The Act also provides a framework for addressing any payments made before the contract was frustrated.

In this case, the hotel was destroyed by fire, which means that the contract is frustrated and cannot be completed as planned. The key issue here is how any payments made before the frustration should be handled.

Explanation of each option:

A. Incorrect. The hotel cannot claim the outstanding amount after frustration of the contract. Under the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943, when a contract is frustrated, the hotel is not entitled to claim the remaining balance of £2,500 from the couple. The hotel would only be able to keep the deposit if it had incurred expenses as a result of preparing for the wedding, but this doesn’t extend to claiming the full amount of the contract.

B. Incorrect. While the hotel can keep the deposit, it cannot claim additional amounts that were spent on food and flowers that were destroyed in the fire. The hotel might be able to claim for expenses incurred before the frustration of the contract, but the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 typically doesn’t allow the hotel to recover more than what it has actually spent or incurred in preparation, and the £1,000 worth of food and flowers was destroyed.

C. Incorrect. Similar to option B, the hotel is not likely to be entitled to claim more than the deposit or the actual expenses incurred. There’s no reason for the hotel to claim an additional £500 from the couple, since the £500 deposit was likely all the hotel is entitled to keep under the law.

D. Correct. Under the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943, the hotel can keep the deposit, but it is not entitled to claim any further payment from the couple. The hotel can only recover the value of the goods or services that have been rendered before the frustration (i.e., if it spent the money on preparations like food and flowers that were destroyed, that may not be recoverable). The deposit is typically kept because it reflects some value for the hotel’s preparation, but the remaining amount (the £2,500) is not payable due to the frustration of the contract.

E. Incorrect. The hotel is entitled to keep the deposit. Under the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943, the hotel can retain the deposit, especially if it has already incurred expenses in preparing for the wedding, such as the cost of food and flowers. It would not be required to return the deposit.

Question 23

FLK1 - Public Law

The correct answer is E.

Under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), individuals must exhaust all domestic remedies before they can bring a case to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). This means that the man must first take his claim through the domestic legal system (i.e., the English courts) and must fully utilize the available legal avenues in his country before approaching the ECtHR.

The rationale behind this requirement is that the domestic courts should have the opportunity to resolve the issue before the case is taken to an international court. This principle of exhaustion of domestic remedies ensures that the ECtHR acts as a last resort and not as an initial forum for claims.

Why other options are incorrect:

A. This is incorrect because the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies is not based on whether the process is costly or burdensome. The exhaustion of remedies requirement is procedural and applies irrespective of the cost or difficulty.

B. This is incorrect because the admissibility of a case before the ECtHR is not solely based on whether the case appears arguable at first glance. The key issue is that the claimant must exhaust domestic remedies first.

C. This is incorrect because there is no requirement to obtain prior approval in the High Court to bring a case to the ECtHR. The requirement is to go through the domestic courts first.

D. While it is true that a case may need to be taken to the High Court, the essential issue is that the claimant must exhaust all domestic remedies (which includes appealing to higher courts, if necessary) before approaching the ECtHR. The key point is that the man must go through all available legal channels in the domestic system, not just the High Court.

Therefore, the correct answer is E. No, because he must first exhaust all available domestic remedies.

Question 24

FLK2 - Trust Law

The correct answer is D.

In this case, the trustees are under a duty to administer the trust according to the terms of the Will, which does not include any express powers regarding the advancement of capital. The man’s Will states that the trust is to provide income to his widow for life and then for his children in equal shares upon her death. The advance of capital to the widow, especially without any express power in the Will or any clear legal authority to do so, is a breach of trust.

The trustees do not have the general power to distribute capital unless such a power is specifically granted in the Will or is implied by law (such as under certain statutory powers). In this case, since the Will does not grant them the authority to advance capital to the widow, the payment is outside their powers and thus a breach of trust.

Why other options are incorrect:

A. This is incorrect because the issue is not the amount distributed, but whether the trustees had the power to distribute any capital at all. The amount of distribution isn’t the primary concern here.

B. This is incorrect. The problem isn’t about the type of investment or use of the money but about whether the trustees had the authority to make the advance in the first place.

C. While it would have been prudent for the trustees to ensure the funds were used for their intended purpose, the core issue is that the trustees did not have the power to advance the funds to the widow in the first place, regardless of the purpose.

E. This is incorrect because the widow is not required to share the capital with the children during her lifetime. The issue is that the trustees did not have the power to advance the capital to her, not the distribution of the funds after the advance.

Question 25

FLK1 - Financial Services

The correct answer is D.

Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA), certain professionals, including solicitors, are under a statutory duty to report any knowledge or suspicion of money laundering to the National Crime Agency (NCA). This is known as a “suspicious activity report” (SAR).

In this case, although the solicitor did not have any direct suspicions of money laundering, the fact that the client was charged with an offence of money laundering in relation to the share transfers raises the possibility that the solicitor should have been aware of the potential for illicit activity. The solicitor may have failed to report knowledge or suspicion of money laundering even though no direct suspicion was raised.

If the solicitor was aware of circumstances that made the transactions suspicious (for example, frequent last-minute changes of recipients for the transfers), they may have been expected to report these suspicions, even if the solicitor did not suspect illegal activity at the time.

Thus, failing to report potential money laundering activity is an offence under the relevant regulations, even if the solicitor did not suspect the transactions were criminal at the time.

Why the other options are incorrect:

A. There is no indication in the scenario that the solicitor directly acquired, used, or had possession of criminal property. This offence relates to an individual knowingly possessing criminal property, which is not the case here.

B. This would apply if the solicitor knowingly helped conceal or disguise the proceeds of crime. However, the solicitor does not appear to have taken any action to conceal criminal property, but rather was surprised by the charges.

C. This offence involves an individual knowingly being involved in arrangements that facilitate criminal property. While the solicitor acted on behalf of the client, there is no indication that the solicitor was aware or concerned that the transactions were facilitating the retention or control of criminal property.

E. There is no evidence that the solicitor was involved in converting or transferring criminal property. The solicitor’s role was primarily to facilitate the share transfers, not to convert or transfer property.

Therefore, D.

Question 26

FLK1 - Public Law

The correct answer is C.

Question 27

FLK2 - Trust Law

The correct answer is A.

To create a valid trust of the house, the woman (settlor) must execute a written confirmation of the trust in order to transfer the property to the trustees. This is because the settlor is the one who is transferring the property to the trustees, and their signature is needed to establish the terms and intentions of the trust.

Here’s why the other options are incorrect:

B. The nephew does not need to sign the trust deed for it to be valid. The trust is being created by the woman, not the nephew. The nephew is the beneficiary of the trust, and his signature is not required to create it.

C. While the trustees need to accept their role in the trust, it is the woman (settlor) who must sign the confirmation to create the trust. The trustees’ signatures are not required for the creation of the trust, though they are essential for the trust to be administered.

D. The woman is the settlor, and her signature is the one that is required to create the trust. The trustees do not need to sign to create the trust.

E. While the woman may appoint an agent to sign on her behalf, it is not necessary for an agent to sign. The woman’s own signature is sufficient to create the trust, provided she is competent to do so.

Thus, the woman’s signature alone is required to create a valid trust of the house.

Question 28

FLK2 - Criminal Law

The correct answer is C.

Gross negligence manslaughter occurs when a person is killed as a result of a breach of a duty of care that is so serious and reckless that it amounts to gross negligence. In this case, the director had a duty of care towards the employee, and her decision to allow him to continue working without the necessary safety helmet—despite knowing the risks—can be seen as gross negligence. This direct link between the director’s negligent action and the death of the employee makes this the most fitting charge.

Let’s consider why the other options are not appropriate:

A. Murder requires an intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. There is no evidence here to suggest that the director intended to kill the employee, so murder is not appropriate.

B. Voluntary manslaughter generally involves an unlawful killing but with some mitigating circumstances, such as provocation or diminished responsibility. This does not fit the facts here, as there was no intentional act of killing.

D. Corporate manslaughter involves the company itself being held responsible for serious failings that result in death, rather than an individual director. The charge here concerns the director personally, not the company as a whole.

E. As with the above, corporate manslaughter applies to the company as a whole, and “accessory” would suggest the director’s involvement in aiding the company’s actions, which doesn’t fit the scenario here.

Given the director’s breach of the duty of care, and the resulting fatality, gross negligence manslaughter is the most appropriate charge.

Question 29

FLK2 - Wills - Taxation

The correct answer is A.