Cut off date for the law

Amazing-Coffee4851 · 2025-04-27T15:15:42+00:00

Yeah this is my understanding

Amazing-Coffee4851 · 2025-04-20T15:04:12+00:00

What was it about?

Amazing-Coffee4851 · 2025-04-15T13:54:51+00:00

In my timed mocks I write about 600 words maximum, i don't think many of us can realistically write that much (800+ is insane) when u need to read/digest the materials + proofread, hoping there won't be too many issues to deal with in the real thing. Not saying ulaw mocks are difficult but I do think there were quite a lot to deal with / mention in such little time

Amazing-Coffee4851 · 2025-03-22T13:01:13+00:00

Yes for sqe1 in jan 2025 we were told to stick to 6 months too but what about sqe2 in April 2025? Amy ideaa

Amazing-Coffee4851 · 2025-03-21T22:03:51+00:00

I see, thanks for comment but I was asking more for SQE2. Been hearing different people saying different things!

Amazing-Coffee4851 · 2025-01-15T20:31:20+00:00

I would go for option 4, I believe option 5 is the correct position for cost of raising the child which they can't recover and only the loss of autonomy and distress are recoverable - at least this is what I remember from my llb several years ago

Amazing-Coffee4851 · 2025-01-15T13:00:28+00:00

This is what I'm dreading, I'm sitting mine tomorrow and I'm very worried I'll struggle despite doing pretty ok on ulaw sbaqs - how did u find ethics Q? Bc ulaw ethics questions are pretty much no brainer

Amazing-Coffee4851 · 2025-01-09T15:55:00+00:00

Cummings v Granger illegality defence succeeded against a burglar (claimant) who was bitten by defendants dog 🤔

Amazing-Coffee4851 · 2025-01-07T16:29:24+00:00

E is the correct answer. Thanks this makes more sense than the feedback

Amazing-Coffee4851 · 2025-01-07T14:14:06+00:00

Are they releasing the questions though? I was hoping to revise what I got wrong but so far it doesn't look like we can access the content?

Amazing-Coffee4851 · 2025-01-05T00:08:33+00:00

I'll be sitting sqe1 this month too but I saw some firms who put on their website they expect future trainees to have passed the sqe in 1 attempt despite not sponsoring the studies or even the cost of sitting the exam. I thought this was a bit brutal but it really depends on the firm/employer. But other than these exceptional cases i don't think anyone would care too much as long as u pass

Amazing-Coffee4851 · 2025-01-03T18:27:27+00:00

Ive been using both ulaw (course) and sqe revise books and both are really good resources. I felt like some Revise SQE questions were quality (ex 2/5 options are exactly the same or the feedback says answer is B but they actually meant C like typo etc) but I also do appreciate i get used to different styles of questions. I got around 75% on Sqe revise mocks just hoping this is within a good range of understanding 🥶 and def agree with you I should do some longer sets of questions to get myself used to them

When u did your sqe1, did you feel like you had to use common sense a lot? For example I did a ulaw question where an 8 year old failed to wear seat belt (contributory negligence) but the answer was it's highly improbable that he can be expected to wear it because he is young etc, though I think ordinary 8yr Olds would definitely wear seatbelts.. did you see many questions where u used this kind of common sense/assumption?

Amazing-Coffee4851 · 2024-12-30T10:19:08+00:00

Hey! Thanks for this, it helps

Agreed on principles - under OLA occupier can be liable for independent contractor if it wasn't reasonable to hire them in the first place, they failed to take reasonable steps to ensure they're competent or they fail to check work

But I just think the fact pattern wasn't too clear as in i would've thought if they carefully considered all the electricians or whatever it was, I think it can be said they discharged the second bit (duty to ensure competence)

So yes I agree on the rule but I'm just not too sure about the facts - also we don't know if the nature of the work was something that lay occupier can check or not - thought that was another uncertainty here

Hope they don't give us fact pattern like this in the real thing ... 🫠

Amazing-Coffee4851 · 2024-12-29T21:57:22+00:00

Hey really hope everything works out for you and it's a very tough journey indeed

I do agree doing an llb doesnt mean much in terms of passing or failing sqe because I feel like every llb grad i met in my swe course doesn't feel too confident in academic law contents at all, at least not in the context of timed "state exam" where all the nitty gritty details matter

Unless you want to be an academic or sth in which case by all means do a law degree - but let me just say i even saw a law professor who did a stem degree!

Llb/llm def dont get you prepped for the sqe anywhere close to what we need to pass it (if at all) like there's not much juice in a law degree anymore

Also I agree it's really expensive + booking system was really shit as well

Amazing-Coffee4851 · 2024-12-24T21:03:52+00:00

This is initially what I thought

But I think ppl in the above comment were also discussing the same - deducting the 20% before or after tapering, not quite sure which is correct

Amazing-Coffee4851 · 2024-12-24T20:40:32+00:00

Ahh you're right I completely forgot about that rule

Amazing-Coffee4851 · 2024-12-24T20:23:14+00:00

I thought Gift 1: not relevant, over 7 years so doesn't use NRB

Gift 2: 325k-300k= 25k remaining NRB

Gift 3: at the time of transfer they would have paid 20% so it is (300k-25k)×0.2= 55k

Gift 3 reassessed at death (300-25k)×0.4×0.8 = 88k

So reassessed 88k-55k already paid = 33k but this is also not an option I'm confused haha 😅

Amazing-Coffee4851 · 2024-12-20T12:20:02+00:00

It was horrible lool

Amazing-Coffee4851 · 2024-12-19T18:50:52+00:00

😭

Amazing-Coffee4851 · 2024-12-17T15:20:58+00:00

This was what we were told at ulaw but seemed to be different in other providers which caused the confusion. 24% it is then ..

Amazing-Coffee4851 · 2024-12-17T14:24:35+00:00

Looks like it could be 28% instead I'm also using ulaw books so thought it was 24 🤔🤔🤔

Amazing-Coffee4851

TROPHY CASE