SQE1 - Solicitors Qualifying Examination Part 1 The Law of Tort Questions and Answers

Question 1

A courier, employed by a delivery company, gets into an argument with a customer on their doorstep about a delivery instruction. The argument escalates, and the courier, feeling insulted, follows the customer into their garden and assaults them. The customer sues the delivery company on the basis of vicarious liability. Based on the precedent in *Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc*, is the company likely to be held vicariously liable?

Accepted Answer

Yes, because the assault arose from an interaction that was directly within the courier's field of activities, which is interacting with customers.

Answer

The Supreme Court in *Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc* established a two-stage test for vicarious liability: 1) Is the relationship one of employment or akin to employment? 2) Is the tort sufficiently closely connected with the employment? In *Mohamud*, an employee's assault on a customer, which started at his kiosk and continued on the forecourt, was deemed to be within the 'field of activities' assigned to him (attending to customers). The courier's argument and subsequent assault originated from his authorised duty of customer interaction, creating a sufficient connection to make the employer liable, even though the act itself was a gross abuse of his position. [3, 19, 42] The other options are incorrect as vicarious liability can apply to intentional torts, the 'field of activities' can be broadly interpreted, and the liability is strict, not dependent on the employer's own negligence.

Question 2

Which of the following statements most accurately compares the duty of care owed by an occupier under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 (to lawful visitors) and the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 (to trespassers)?

Accepted Answer

The 1957 Act allows for claims for property damage, while the 1984 Act restricts claims to death and personal injury only.

Answer

The Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 provides that the common duty of care extends to keeping the visitor and their property reasonably safe. [6] In contrast, the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984, which governs the duty to non-visitors (trespassers), explicitly states that the duty is in respect of death or personal injury and does not extend to damage to property. [8, 12] The other options are incorrect. The 1957 Act requires reasonable safety, not complete safety. The duties under the two acts are different; the duty to a trespasser only arises if specific conditions regarding the occupier's knowledge of the danger and the trespasser's presence are met. [10, 21] The duty under the 1984 Act is not restricted to deliberately created dangers.

Question 3

A restaurant diner posts a negative online review stating, 'In my opinion, the chef at this restaurant has no talent. The steak I ate last night was tough and flavourless, which an honest person would say is evidence of this.' The restaurant owner sues the diner for defamation. Which defence under the Defamation Act 2013 is the diner most likely to rely on?

Accepted Answer

Honest Opinion

Answer

The defence of Honest Opinion, under section 3 of the Defamation Act 2013, is the most appropriate defence. [14, 23] This defence requires three conditions to be met: (1) the statement must be one of opinion, not fact; (2) the statement must indicate the basis of the opinion; and (3) an honest person could have held that opinion based on a fact that existed at the time. [5, 18] The diner's statement is framed as an opinion ('In my opinion...') and provides the basis for it (the tough steak). The 'Truth' defence would be difficult as 'no talent' is a subjective judgment, not a provable fact. 'Public Interest' is unlikely to apply to a simple restaurant review, and 'Absolute Privilege' applies to specific situations like parliamentary or court proceedings.

Question 4

In a claim for private nuisance, a court will assess whether the defendant's use of their land constitutes an 'unreasonable interference' with the claimant's enjoyment of their land. Which of the following factors is the court LEAST likely to consider relevant in this assessment?

Accepted Answer

The financial resources of the defendant.

Answer

When determining if an interference is unreasonable in private nuisance, courts consider several factors, including the locality (what is a nuisance in a quiet residential area may not be in an industrial one), the duration and frequency of the act, the sensitivity of the claimant, and the presence of malice on the part of the defendant. [28, 30] However, the defendant's financial resources or ability to pay damages is not a factor in determining whether their actions constitute a nuisance in the first place. The assessment is based on the nature and impact of the interference itself, not the defendant's wealth.

Question 5

In a personal injury claim, damages are often categorised as either general or special. Which of the following would be classified as special damages?

Accepted Answer

The cost of prescription medication and physiotherapy incurred up to the date of the trial.

Answer

Special damages are awarded for a claimant's quantifiable financial losses that have been incurred up to the date of trial. [48] These are losses that can be precisely calculated, such as medical expenses, travel costs for appointments, and loss of past earnings. [29, 40] General damages, on the other hand, are for non-quantifiable losses like pain, suffering, loss of amenity (enjoyment of life), and psychological harm, which are assessed by the court based on judicial guidelines. [25, 47]

SQE1 Practice Test

SQE1 Practice Test

SQE1 - Solicitors Qualifying Examination Part 1 The Law of Tort Questions and Answers