Law London Practice Questions with Explanations

Law Tutor - This set covers core legal areas such as Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Contract Law, and Tort Law, with questions and in-depth explanations tailored to reflect the UK legal system.

1. Constitutional Law

Q1.

Parliament passes a new Act that allows the government to detain individuals without trial for up to 60 days. A citizen challenges this law under the Human Rights Act 1998, arguing it violates the right to liberty (Article 5 ECHR). Can the courts declare the law invalid?

Answer:

No, UK courts cannot invalidate Acts of Parliament due to the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty. However, under the Human Rights Act 1998, the courts can issue a declaration of incompatibility under Section 4 if they believe the Act is inconsistent with the ECHR. It is then up to Parliament to decide whether to amend the legislation.

Explanation:

This question tests the balance between Parliamentary Sovereignty and human rights protections in the UK. Unlike some jurisdictions, UK courts cannot "strike down" primary legislation. The declaratory approach reflects the constitutional principle that Parliament is the supreme law-making body.

2. Criminal Law

Q2.

Daniel swings a punch at John intending to hit him but misses. Instead, he hits Emily, who is standing behind John, causing her serious injury. Is Daniel criminally liable for Emily’s injuries?

Answer:

Yes. Daniel would be criminally liable under the doctrine of transferred malice. The intent to cause harm to John transfers to Emily, the actual victim.

Explanation:

Transferred malice occurs when the mens rea for one victim is transferred to the unintended victim. In R v Latimer (1886), a similar principle was upheld. Although Daniel did not intend to hit Emily, the intent to cause unlawful harm suffices for liability.

3. Contract Law

Q3.

Lucy agrees to buy a painting from Ben for £2,000. After the agreement, Ben learns the painting is worth £10,000 and refuses to sell it. Can Lucy enforce the contract?

Answer:

Yes. The contract is legally binding as long as all elements (offer, acceptance, consideration, and intention to create legal relations) are present. A mistake as to value alone does not void the contract unless there is misrepresentation or fraud.

Explanation:

This touches on common law mistake and contract formation principles. In Smith v Hughes (1871), the court held that a mistake about value does not prevent contract formation unless one party has misled the other. Ben’s refusal is a breach of contract.

4. Tort Law – Negligence

Q4.

Ali owns a café. He mops the floor but forgets to put up a warning sign. Sarah walks in, slips, and injures her back. Can Ali be held liable in negligence?

Answer:

Yes. Ali owed a duty of care to Sarah as a lawful visitor. By failing to put up a warning sign, he breached that duty, causing foreseeable injury.

Explanation:

This is a classic negligence scenario. Following Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) and Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, occupiers have a duty to ensure premises are reasonably safe. The breach and resultant injury satisfy the Caparo test: foreseeability, proximity, and whether it is fair, just, and reasonable to impose liability.

5. Public Law – Judicial Review

Q5.

A government department refuses to grant a licence to a business without offering reasons or a chance to appeal. Can the business apply for judicial review?

Answer:

Yes. The business can apply for judicial review on grounds of procedural unfairness. The rules of natural justice require public bodies to act fairly and give reasons in decisions that affect rights.

Explanation:

In administrative law, decisions affecting legal rights or legitimate expectations must follow fair procedures. In R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody (1994), the court emphasised the duty to give reasons in administrative decisions. Failure to do so makes the action ultra vires (beyond power).

6. Equity and Trusts

Q6.

Tom transfers property to Sara "to be used for the benefit of my grandchildren, as she sees fit." Does this create a valid trust?

Answer:

No. The wording is too vague to create a valid trust. A trust must have certainty of intention, subject matter, and objects. The phrase “as she sees fit” suggests a moral obligation, not a legal one.

Explanation:

The three certainties, as outlined in Knight v Knight (1840), are essential for a trust to be valid. In Lambe v Eames (1871), similar wording failed to create a trust due to the lack of legal obligation.

7. EU Law (as retained in UK law)

Q7.

After Brexit, can individuals still rely on EU law in UK courts?

Answer:

Yes, but only in limited circumstances. Under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, existing EU laws as at 31 December 2020 are part of retained EU law. However, new EU laws post-Brexit are not binding unless incorporated into UK law.

Explanation:

This question highlights post-Brexit legal realities. Retained EU law continues to influence UK law in areas like employment and consumer protection. However, UK courts now have greater discretion in interpretation and can depart from EU jurisprudence.

8. Human Rights Law

Q8.

A local authority refuses housing to a single mother with two children. She claims it breaches her right to a private and family life under Article 8 of the ECHR. Is this claim likely to succeed?

Answer:

It depends. Article 8 does not impose a positive duty to provide housing in every case. However, if the refusal is disproportionate or discriminatory, it may violate Article 8.

Explanation:

In Anufrijeva v Southwark LBC (2003), the court ruled that Article 8 may be engaged in housing decisions, especially where children are involved. Yet, the right is qualified, and interference can be justified. Courts apply a proportionality test.

Conclusion

These practice questions provide a cross-section of the types of legal issues that students in London or studying UK law are likely to encounter. Each explanation connects legal doctrine to relevant case law and statutes, helping students understand not just the what, but the why behind each answer. By practicing this way, law students build critical reasoning and analytical skills essential for exams and legal practice alike.