UOLLB First Class Law Notes®

The Wednesbury test, derived from the case Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948), is a key principle in UK administrative law. It provides a standard for assessing whether a public authority’s decision is irrational or unreasonable.

We are excited to announce the launch of UOLLB SQE Turbocharge, a series of SQE study guides covering all SQE1 topics. Practice questions are also available separately 👉 uolpress.com SQE Business Law and Practice  SQE Constitutional and Administrative Law  SQE Contract Law  SQE Criminal Law  SQE Criminal Practice*  SQE Dispute Resolution* SQE Ethics and Professional Conduct* SQE Land Law  SQE Legal Services  SQE Legal System of England and Wales  SQE Property Practice  SQE Solicitors Accounts* SQE Tort Law  SQE Trusts Law  SQE Wills and the Administration of Estates* SQE Question Bank (360 SQE1 Questions covering FLK1 and FLK2) * available soon #SQE #SQE1 👉 uolpress.com

As one of the most distinguished British judges, Lord Bingham presents the rule of law as a key constitutional principle and breaks it down into eight sub-rules, which define how a government should act under the law.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress is a common law tort that occurs when one party (the defendant) intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another party (the claimant) through extreme and outrageous conduct. In English law, this tort is relatively rare, as claimants typically prefer to pursue claims under harassment or other causes of action, particularly since proving the severity and outrageous nature of the defendant’s conduct can be challenging.

R v Wilson [1997] QB 47 is a well-known case in English criminal law decided by the Court of Appeal, establishing the rule that consent to acts that may cause actual bodily harm is a valid consent. It was distinguished from R v Brown [1993], where consent was not a valid defence in sado-masochistic activities causing grievous bodily harm.

Promissory estoppel usually applies where a contractual relationship is already in place or where a formal contract is absent but the conduct between the parties suggests a reliance on a promise.

In England and Wales, there are three main types of property ownership: freehold, leasehold, and commonhold, each with distinct legal characteristics.

Promissory estoppel is a legal doctrine in contract law that prevents a party from going back on a promise, even if the promise was made without formal consideration (a key element of binding contracts). The doctrine is applied in cases where enforcing strict contractual rights would be unjust or inequitable.

Only 44% of candidates passed #SQE1. This is the lowest pass rate ever! Do not sit the #SQE without preparation, even if you are a law graduate. Your law programme did not cover the entire SQE syllabus, nor did it adequately prepare you to answer SQE questions. You learned to write essays and answer problem questions but these are not what you need to do in SQE1. If you are not a law graduate, DO NOT take the SQE without at least 1-2 years of preparation. Check out our Essential Advice for SQE1. Avoid some common mistakes most candidates make. https://lnkd.in/eKbkVsfb You need to do more mock practice. Check out our SQE Mock Exam with detailed explanations. https://lnkd.in/eMNAH_vq You will also find our SQE Preparation Package useful. https://lnkd.in/eRS4rzYp We are developing a more cost-effective SQE Revision Package. Stay tuned.

Promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine in English law that prevents a party from going back on a promise, even if there is no formal consideration for the promise, as long as certain conditions are met. It is used to prevent unfairness or injustice, where one party relies on the promise of another and suffers detriment as a result.