SQE1 common mistakes
SQE1 · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Recording a receipt on the wrong ledger - entering money that belongs to the client as office money (or treating a mixed receipt from a client as office money) and then paying out one cheque that covers both office and client items.
Candidates treat the accounts question as arithmetic bookkeeping rather than as a trust-compliance question, so they default to whichever entry 'looks commercial' and forget the underlying rule that client money must be held in a client account and office money in the office account.
What to do instead
Before writing any entry, ask the two mandatory questions in order: whose money is this (client or office), and which account does it belong in? Never split a single payment between the two accounts - pay the whole sum into the correct account and then make a separate, properly recorded transfer with the client's authority.
Classifying a pre-contractual statement as a term purely because the buyer regarded it as important, without running the recognised objective factors (timing of the statement, reduction of the eventual contract to writing, relative specialist knowledge of the parties, and whether the injured party would have contracted regardless).
The intuitive 'it mattered to them, so it must be a term' reasoning feels fair and candidates stop there, missing that the test is objective and that importance alone is only one factor.
What to do instead
Work the factors explicitly and in order, state which way each factor points, then apply the remedy consequence: if it is a term, assess condition/warranty/innominate term to decide termination and damages; if it is a mere representation, go straight to misrepresentation and s.2(1) Misrepresentation Act 1967.
Applying the three-stage Caparo test to an established duty situation - a driver and pedestrian, an employer and employee, a doctor and patient - and spending the answer arguing foreseeability, proximity and fair, just and reasonable.
Revision materials present Caparo as 'the' duty test, so candidates apply it mechanically to every negligence question rather than first asking whether the relationship already falls into a settled category.
What to do instead
Use a two-step habit: first ask 'is this a settled category with an established duty?', in which case cite the category and move straight to breach, causation and remoteness; only if the situation is novel run Caparo and discuss policy.
Advising that a buyer of registered land takes free of an occupier's beneficial interest simply because that interest does not appear on the register, without considering whether the occupier is in actual occupation so that the interest overrides under Schedule 3 paragraph 2 of the Land Registration Act 2002.
Candidates learn 'register is king' as a slogan and forget that overriding interests are precisely the exception, and they also skip the s.27 requirement that certain dispositions must be registered to take effect at law.
What to do instead
Use a fixed checklist for every registered-land disposition: (1) is the disposition one listed in s.27 LRA 2002; (2) has it been completed by registration; (3) do any third-party interests bind - registered, notice-protected, or overriding under Schedule 3, checking actual occupation and the exceptions in that paragraph.
Concluding that a trust exists by going straight to certainty of subject matter and objects without first identifying a clear imperative intention to create a trust, and without separating resulting trusts (failed transfer, unintended gap in beneficial ownership) from constructive trusts (unconscionable conduct, common intention).
The three certainties are taught as a list, so candidates treat them as three equal boxes to tick and rush the hardest one, intention, which turns on construction of the words actually used.
What to do instead
Answer in this order: (1) is there an intention to create a trust - imperative versus precatory language, no need for the word 'trust'; (2) certainty of subject matter and objects; (3) formalities and constitution (declaration of trust of land in writing and signed; transfer formalities for the trust property); (4) only then, if the trust fails, identify which type of resulting or constructive trust applies and why.
Checking a will for capacity and intention but not running through the s.9 Wills Act 1837 formalities, and not flagging that marriage or formation of a civil partnership revokes an existing will under s.18 of that Act unless made in contemplation of it.
Candidates focus on the dramatic issues (testamentary capacity, undue influence, rectification) and treat formalities as an afterthought, when in practice formality defects are the commonest reason a will fails.
What to do instead
Keep a formalities and revocation checklist at the front of every will answer: in writing; signed by the testator or by someone in the testator's presence and at the testator's direction; signed or acknowledged in the presence of two or more witnesses present at the same time; each witness attesting and signing in the testator's presence. Then ask whether a later marriage or civil partnership has revoked it.
Treating loss of control as a straightforward route from murder down to voluntary manslaughter without checking all three limbs of s.54 Coroners and Justice Act 2009 and, in particular, the excluded circumstances in s.55.
Loss of control is taught as a partial defence with a memorable name, so candidates state the label and the 'normal degree of tolerance' line and skip the qualifying trigger analysis and the exclusion for sexual infidelity.
What to do instead
State the defence as a three-part structure with a separate exclusion check: (1) loss of self-control, with the s.54(2) fear-of-serious-violence or s.54(3) seriously-wronged trigger; (2) not acting out of a considered desire for revenge; (3) the objective test of a person of the defendant's sex and age with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint; then apply s.55 and explain the effect of sexual infidelity as something the court must disregard.
Computing the limitation period for a personal injury claim from the date of the accident alone and ignoring the alternative date of knowledge under ss.11 and 14 Limitation Act 1980 and the court's discretion under s.33.
The three-year period is remembered as a single number, so candidates apply the accrual date only and never consider that the period may start later, or that it may be extended.
What to do instead
For any personal injury claim, calculate both candidate start dates - date of accrual and date of knowledge (construing s.14 knowledge of the injury and its attribution) - take the later as the operative start, then state the six-year position for non-personal-injury damage in the same claim and finish by noting s.33 discretion and how it would be argued.
Advising on a judicial review claim without checking the short time limit and promptness requirement (three months, and promptly in any event under CPR 54.5) and without considering whether an adequate alternative remedy such as a statutory appeal exists.
Attention goes to the substantive grounds - illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety - because they are the memorable triad, and the procedural hurdles that decide most real claims are treated as background.
What to do instead
Front-load a procedural gateway check before discussing grounds: public body acting in a public law capacity; sufficient interest; promptness and the three-month limit with any extension argument; exhaustion of alternative remedies and any ouster; and whether the challenge is to a decision, a failure to decide, or a continuing act. Only then set out the grounds.
Proposing a written resolution of the members for a matter that cannot be decided that way - removal of a director under s.168 Companies Act 2006, removal of an auditor under s.510, or any members' resolution in a public company under s.288(1).
Written resolutions are the efficient, modern-feeling answer and candidates reach for them whenever members must decide something, without recalling the closed list of excluded matters and the public company bar.
What to do instead
Attach a three-line filter to every members' resolution question: is the company public (if so, no written resolution at all)? Is the matter one of the excluded matters in s.288(2), including s.168 and s.510? If neither, use a written resolution with the correct majority (ordinary, or special for the matters listed in s.283) and record the date it is passed; otherwise require a general meeting with proper notice.