# data[].attributes.body
For the assessed problem question that was released in December, do we need to include footnotes and a bibliography?

Thank you in advance!

# data[].attributes.body
Will you be uploading the recording for the week 2 leture this week?

# data[].attributes.body
can you check out the question from the 2021-22 aper about loved ones and former collegues please? that was asked previously?
See below, but I'm really going to stop answering now.

# data[].attributes.body
Do i have to include theorists that criticized resulting trusts? in an essay question?
Answer: If the critique is relevant, maybe, but this is an exam so we are not expecting you to have read loads of academic opinions. One or two from the textbooks even is okay.

# data[].attributes.body
In a three certainties PQ do i need to apply McPhail and Re Baden 2?
Answer: Yes, if the uncertainty is about the objects and it's a discretionary trust.

# data[].attributes.body
What is a transactional link [I found the case of the exception to the rule of tracing in overdraft accounts, HOWEVER i still do not understand how i can link this into a scenario]. How do i know when there is a transactional link? [in simple words]
Answer: are the transactions linked? Are they two different parts of one plan? In the 18/19 question, it's clear that Matt moves money in and out of the overdraft as part of one plan, a coordinated scheme. A transactional link basically means that you can see a link between the two transactions: in and out of the overdraft.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi please could you kindly clarify the test for conceptual and evidential certainty. Thank you.
Answer: CONCEPTUAL certainty is about the DEFINITION. Can we define this class with enough certainty that will make a workable discretionary trust?  For example, law students is certain enough that a court could see whether or not the Trustees are applying the rules properly.  On the other hand a trust for NICE law students would be too uncertain. We can't define nice in a way that we all agree with.  It would fail.
EVIDENTIAL certainty is the claimant's problem. The onus is the person who asks for money to prove that they're within the class - it's not the trustees' or court's problem and it would cause a trust to fail.

# data[].attributes.headline
Reasoning behind the different communication criteria for HST/ST?

# data[].attributes.subject
Reasoning behind the different communication criteria for HST/ST?

# data[].attributes.body
I understand Lord Wright in Re Keen gives the rational but I'm having trouble understanding it.
Answer: look at the recommended reading in the module guide or a textbook. Maybe the reasoning isn't convincing.

# data[].attributes.body
is 'my loved ones' conceptually certain?

is ' former collegues who helped me conceptually certain'?  [i've seen the mark scheme it doesn't say and is a bit confusing]  I think they are not. OR loved ones can be connected with relatives i guess which in Re Baden it was said that it is conceptually certain

BUT former colleagues can be too broad thus it can be said conceptually uncertain, but if the people that 'help him' prove that they fall within that class 'evidential certainty' as Sachs LJ said in 'Re Baden' that showed the differences between conceptually and evidential certainty in discretionary trusts maybe with the help of a third party [Re Tucks] it can be proven that it is not entirely conceptually uncertain.

I don't know it's confusing
Answer: We often write problem questions where you can argue it either way. What matters is that you take the right test and apply it. FWIW I agree with you on loved ones. Former colleagues may be okay, but is there any conceptual certainty on the help bit. Probably not, but what matters is that you apply McPhail and Baden and reach a conclusion.

# data[].attributes.body
also do i have to apply both tests? mcPhail and Re Baden.

But what do you mean by apply, you mean how relevant they are with the facts of the scenario?

OR actually write down the steps of each tests but that would take extra word count if i have to explain all the tests i apply to the facts
Answer: I think you're overthinking it. Apply as in IPAC, and don't write things out in full if it's wasting words.

# data[].attributes.headline
question for the previous answer of pp 2018-19

# data[].attributes.subject
question for the previous answer of pp 2018-19

# data[].attributes.body
if the money fails wouldn't it result back to the settlor's estate?
Answer: Yes.

# data[].attributes.body
so if someone writes 10 words less or more than the word count they won't be penalised right? if they write more the worst thing that can happen is for the examiner to stop reading after 1250 or is it fine if it's only 10-15 words more. [asking for all law exams]
Answer: Yes, that is that will happen. We will stop reading. We won't extra punish you for it as well.

# data[].attributes.body
'Hard working students of the UoR' is a bit confusing is it conceptually certain? How do i distinguish a class that is conceptually certain when it mentions something like this.
'Muslim friends' that's also a bit confusing because i think friends was not regarded conceptually certain.
Answer: In problem questions we often like to give you things you could argue either way - it gives you more to talk about and more of a chance to show off what you know.  The most important thing is that you take the right test (McPhail, Baden) and apply it.  Can you say whether a student is or is not hard-working? I agree with you, I don't think so. It's too vague. BUT the question also suggests an expert that could resolve that, like in Re Tuck and Re Coxen. Maybe the Head of School could draw up some tests about attendance, marks etc that could determine this. If I were marking this today, I'd give credit to the students who applied the test and reached a clear conclusion and it wouldn't matter whether they said valid or void (but tell me what would happen to the money if it fails).
I agree with you, as well, that friends is already conceptually uncertain under Re Barlow and putting Muslim in front of it makes it worse rather than better. That one fails. If it had been for example "practicing Muslim relatives"  then we may have been able to save that by asking a local Muslim religious leader to define practicing Muslim for us (again, Tuck, Coxen). It could make it certain enough to work.

# data[].attributes.body
What are the controversial issues regarding charity?
Answer: You can find that out by looking at Mary Synge's lecture slides or listening to them again if they're available on YuJa.

# data[].attributes.body
If you do the maths wrong but the legal aspect of the answer is correct would we get penalised?
Answer: No, we're not testing your maths so if you get that wrong you won't lose marks for that.

# data[].attributes.body
For resulting trusts in the previous years you asked about 'why do resulting trusts arise/operate'. This is a quite confusing area so how would it be best to structure my answer in an essay like this because it is pretty difficult. I mean ofc I have to describe the two types of trusts automatic and presumed. I also have to say the two important cases of 'Vandervell 2' and 'Islighton' and the two different views. But then what else would you advice to say. Do we have to talk about the twodifferent views of Megarry J and Browne-Wilkinson but then what... that's the confusing part.
Answer: This question was asked in 18/19 and there is a generic feedback document on Blackboard now.  You would probably also need to mention Air Jamaica and Lord Millett's attempt to bring what Megarry and Lord B-W said together. Then answer the question: what do you think is the most convincing answer? There is a wealth of stuff written on this, but you have 1250 words so wouldn't have room for everything you could be expected to say.

# data[].attributes.body
In the revision lecture you solved 2 problem questions. Will these topics come up in the exam? or due to the fact we did them in the revision they won't come up?
Answer: I am not allowed to tell you what will come up in the exam - but we are not mean. We would not have picked topics specifically because they wouldn't come up in the exam. So the answer to your first question is: sorry, I can't say. The answer to your second question is: no.

# data[].attributes.body
For an essay question to get a first what do we need to include?  What things would you want us to include in order to get a first or a high 2:1.
Answer: as a basic general rule, you need to show that you know what the law is and that you've read enough (cases, textbooks, articles, whatever) to have developed an informed opinion on this question.  And don't waste any words on things that are irrelevant or less relevant, like telling me the facts of cases when that's just wasting part of your word count.
I know it's easier said than done, but it's a good start. And have notes prepared on the main areas so you're not starting your research on the day of the exam.

# data[].attributes.body
In the case, it was ruled that the association did not get the money since it was not in control of it. So, the trust is rendered void, right?
Answer: Burrell was essentially about tax (the Conservative Party wanted to pay less tax but they lost) but yes, any trust/gift to an unincorporated association can't work if the association/members don't fully control the property. The trust would fail and the money would go back to the settlor on a resulting trust.

# data[].attributes.body
so the things i've mentioned are relevant? i just need to also mention the things you've said as well but i need to criticize them.  Do you suggest any article or book besides the one we have for better understanding of resulting trusts?
Answer: Yes, they are relevant, but I'm afraid I don't have any other sources to recommend.

# data[].attributes.body
In the recording of the revision lecture there is a case that 'Sir Arthur' said this 'uncertainty in the subject matter of the gift has a reflex action upon the previous words and throws doubt upon the intention of the testator'.
However i didn't catch the name of the case and i'm not sure if the name of the judge is correct. I hope this makes sense.
Answer: It was Sir Arthur Hobhouse in Mussorie Bank v Raynor. It basically means that if the testator was quite vague about the subject matter as well then that is further evidence that they did not intend to create a trust, but to create a gift instead.
If I left money to my husband, in the hope that he should be able to leave most of it to our children and grandchildren, then the vagueness of subject matter "most of it" is further evidence that it's a gift with no legal obligation.

# data[].attributes.body
Do you want us to do IPAC or would it be better to put principle and application together so there is no repetition. Because in my non-assessed the marker wrote that we have to be cautious when separating principle and application.
Answer: You don't have to stick to a rigid IPAC structure if that leads to repetition. BUT you should put your IPAC for each issue together before moving on to the next issue. Don't put all the issues, then all the principles, then all the application because that's so difficult for the marker to follow.

# data[].attributes.body
I can’t see the rets of the past papers only 2018-2019 and 21-22
Answer: I have snooped around a few old Blackboard sites and I have found a couple more that I am putting up on this year's sites now.

# data[].attributes.body
What about dishonest  assistance that’s controversial and secret trusts as well they came up in a previous exam paper?
Answer: yes those topics could both come up. The can be either essays or problem questions. That's all I can tell you, I'm afraid.

# data[].attributes.body
Do we use the complete list test for the Fixed trusts and the Is or is not test for the Discretionary trust?
Can we use the is or is not test in a fixed trust as well?
Answer: Yes, your first sentence is correct.  Your second sentence is wrong. Don't do that.  It won't work.
If for example, a fixed trust is for £10,000 to be distributed equally between Annika's grandchildren, then you need to know how many grandchildren I have before you can start giving out any money. Fixed trusts usually have a much smaller number of beneficiaries and the testator's intention is that everyone should get something - so we need to know who everyone is.

# data[].attributes.body
In a problem question how do we know if we should apply tracing or the rule in Tan (strangers to the trust)
Answer: Which of those will get the most money for the client? If there is property you can trace into (and particularly if it has increased in value) then you use tracing. If the property is all gone, the trustee is bankrupt or has bigger debts etc, then look at claiming from third parties using Tan and Akindele. The problem questions will make it quite clear to you which one you should go for.

# data[].attributes.body
Why do academics favour Lord Millet’s dissenting opinion?
Answer: because it makes logical sense, and it makes sense on policy grounds as well - to be able to get more money back for the beneficiaries. Lord Millett's an eminent equity judge, he knew what he was talking about - whereas the others mainly felt sorry for that poor solicitor.

# data[].attributes.body
Is the topic of strangers to the trust essentially just tracing in instances that do not involve fiduciaries. So essentially would I be correct in saying that tracing is for fiduciaries and strangers to the trust is what is used for non fiduciaries?
Answer: the topic if strangers isn't tracing, it's more like a step beyond tracing. If there's property left, try to trace into it and claim it for the beneficiary. If there's no property left, and there are third parties involved that aren't completely innocent, then it's worth trying to sue those 'strangers' for DA or KR.

# data[].attributes.body
I don’t really understand what the outcome was in this case, was he in breach or not? did this create a ct?
Answer: Yes, he was in breach. He had used knowledge he gained as a fiduciary to make money for himself, and to put himself in a position where his fiduciary duty and his self-interest could conflict. He held his profits on constructive trust. But, the court knew he'd acted in good faith throughout so they awarded him a lot of that money for the work he'd done, to make the outcome slightly less unfair for him.

# data[].attributes.body
Does a fiduciary breach duties even where a profit is not made? Or are we only concerned with when this is the case for the purposes of creating a constructive trust?
Answer: Yes, a fiduciary can breach their duties even where a profit is not made. But in those instances, there would be no need for a constructive trust. There would instead be a personal claim against the trustee to compensate from their own money for the breach - we've had lectures on that as well. When fiduciary duties come up in problem questions it is usually in combination with profits or bribes and a CT.

# data[].attributes.body
In what way does a breach of fiduciary duty bring rise to the creation of a constructive trust
Answer: Equity regards as done what ought to be done (that's one of those old maxims). Equity says that the fiduciary should be making money for the principal, so it treats the fiduciary as if he was in fact making money for the principal and holding that money on constructive trust for the principal. That way, Equity also makes sure that the fiduciary cannot ANY gains from his/her bad behaviour.

# data[].attributes.body
If the legal owner cannot trace into a mixed fund, what happens to him? Does the law leave him with nothing to be gained despite the defendant breached his fiduciary duty? If not, how will the claimant get his property back?
Answer: this is a very broad question and will depend on lots of factors. Also, if there has been a breach of a fiduciary duty then it's usually the legal owner himself who is in breach, so he won't be trying to trace at law. There is an action in law called Money Had and Received, but it is not something we look at in this Equity module. Legal owners' remedies aren't really our concern, if that makes sense.

# data[].attributes.headline
Use this padlet to ask any questions about the exam.  Leave your post white so we know we need to answer it. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Use this padlet to ask any questions about the exam.  Leave your post white so we know we need to answer it. 

# data[].attributes.body
Which chapters should we focus more for an essay question and not a PQ?
Answer: I can't tell you that, but you will be able to make well-informed guesses if you look at past exam papers and at the tutorial questions.  As a general rule, something is more likely to come up as an essay if there is something controversial about it: like the timing requirement for HSTs, or the changing rules for Constitution, or the misinterpretation of Tan in Twinsectra, or the very strict rules for Fiduciaries, or some of the more controversial rules on what can be charitable, but those are just examples and I can't tell you precisely what the essay questions will be, sorry. They could be something else completely.

# data[].attributes.body
What is the justification for using a half secret trust over a fully secret trust? Or vise versa. They seem kinda similar to me idk
Answer: I think, personally, it could be about how much you trust the trustee. There's always a danger in a FST that they'll keep the money for themselves. They can't do that in a HST. On the other hand, a HST has stricter timing requirements and you can't change your mind once the will is written & signed. With a FST you can change your instructions to the trustee at any time before your death.

# data[].attributes.body
How does a secret trust prevent fraud? It doesnt really make sense to me, would it not do the opposite and increase fraud?
Answer: that's a good question, and I would mainly direct you to Nowrin's lectures, because she taught this. A fully secret trust does, as you say, increase the potential for fraud because once the testator's dead, the trustee can just keep quiet and keep the money for himself as it looks like a gift in the will. A half-secret trust does prevent that - the trustee can't keep the money for themselves. Yet the rules for HSTs are stricter.

# data[].attributes.body
What does dehors the will mean? How is a secret trust in operation outside the will if it is mentioned in the will but just not said it’s a trust?
Answer: all these are good questions that academics debate. Dehors just kind of means outside, as you say. A fully secret trust isn't actually mentioned in the will, it's completely hidden "behind" a gift. So that way, the law doesn't get involved with the fully secret trust at all. Nobody else knows it's there. The main reason for that is secrecy.

# data[].attributes.body
In the handout there are case names however, a lot of them do not have facts or even explain their relevance to the topic just the name, so I was just wondering if there was a glossary or something or whether we have to find the facts ourselves in relation to the topic?
Answer: Look at the lecture slides and lecture recordings as well. Apart from that, there is no glossary or similar handout. We are expecting you to add to the things we give you with your own wider reading throughout the year. The cases we mention will all be explained in a textbook - and there are several of those free to you on OUP Law Trove. Finally, the FACTS are not the most important thing about cases, that's the rules they lay down - concentrate on those.

# data[].attributes.body
Will we be penalised or praised or nothing if we discuss things about a topic from the textbook that isn’t in the lectures or handout.
Answer: you will absolutely be praised / get marks for extra knowledge that you've added from your own wider reading - it's what we expect from students, actually. As long as what you're writing is relevant, obviously. But you will never be punished for writing irrelevant things - it just means you have fewer words to use to write things that give you marks.

# data[].attributes.body
For what reasons would tracing not be possible or in what instances is there no point even trying tracing?
Answer: the most common reason is practical: the money has all been spent (dissipated is the technical equity term), spent on things that have been used up. Often money is also spent with Equity's Darling, a bona fide purchaser or seller who has no notice of the breach of trust.

# data[].attributes.headline
Is the topic strangers to the trust part of tracing or separate

# data[].attributes.subject
Is the topic strangers to the trust part of tracing or separate

# data[].attributes.body
Answer: It is a separate topic. It's another way for beneficiaries to try to get some money back as compensation if tracing isn't possible. A problem question on strangers (aka third parties, dishonest assistance and knowing receipt) will probably tell you that there's no point in suing the trustees or trying tracing. In theory the two topics could come up mixed in a question but they are still two distinct area and you should IPAC them separately.

# data[].attributes.headline
What is the main distinction between common law tracing and equitable tracing?

# data[].attributes.subject
What is the main distinction between common law tracing and equitable tracing?

# data[].attributes.body
Answer: two differences.
1) Common Law tracing is done by the legal owner, whereas equitable tracing is done by the equitable owner / the beneficiaries.
2) Common Law tracing does not work if the money has been transferred electronically or has been in a bank account mixed with other funds. This means it's practically useless today.

# data[].attributes.body
How long will this padlet be available for, would I be able to come back here during the exam or will it be removed?
Answer: That's a good question. I definitely WON'T be answering it during the exam, but I will keep it up - and it will be here for those who do the exam in the resit period as well.

# data[].attributes.headline
What is the difference between the fair-dealing and self-dealing rule?

# data[].attributes.subject
What is the difference between the fair-dealing and self-dealing rule?

# data[].attributes.body
Answer: Shall I save us both some time and point to what they both have in common instead: neither have featured in this year's lectures, which means they won't feature in the exam questions either unless you specifically want to bring them up if there's an essay on fiduciary duties. :)

# data[].attributes.body
In a problem question, how would you suggest to increase your word count or is around 900- 1000 words acceptable. I don’t know how to extend it if it has already stated the issue, relevant law and have applied it.
Answer: What matters is that you address every issue as fully as it requires and don't waste words on anything that's irrelevant or less relevant. The skill is in knowing exactly what to include. If you are short of the wordcount, make sure you haven't missed anything, but you won't be penalised for having fewer words! We have enough to read anyway.

# data[].attributes.body
Is there anywhere online to access the Hanbury and Martin Textbook? It is not on law trove and all other means are under a paywall.
Answer: No, sorry there is no other (legal) way to obtain it as far as I know. There are, however, several textbooks available on Law Trove that are just as good: Graham Virgo's Principles of Equity is very up-to-date, for example, and he has also co-written a Text, Cases & Materials Equity textbook that'll be as comprehensive as Martin.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why was Re Steele decided to be a trust even though precatory language was used?

# data[].attributes.subject
Why was Re Steele decided to be a trust even though precatory language was used?

# data[].attributes.body
Answer: because although precatory words are no longer enough on their own to say there IS a trust, the use of precatory words doesn't automatically mean there ISN'T a trust.  The question is: once you read the document as a whole, does it show that the testator had the intention to create a trust (test set e.g. in Comiskey v Bowring-Hanbury)
In Steele, the answer was yes because the testatrix, or her laywer, had used exactly the same words that had been held to create a trust in the older case of Shelley v Shelley, thus showing intention.

# data[].attributes.headline
Are Quistclose trusts express or implied?

# data[].attributes.subject
Are Quistclose trusts express or implied?

# data[].attributes.body
Answer: Oh. My. Days. There's a whole academic debate about that, like so many other things in Equity & Trusts. In this module, we have dealt with it under resulting (ie implied) trusts, but some academics argue, with good reasons, that maybe it's an express trust as the Lender sets out to kind of create it so they can get their money back if things go wrong. There is no right answer to this, basically, sorry, but it's also probably not a question we'll ask you in the exam.

# data[].attributes.body
What is the difference between a secret trust and an express trust? I understand how half-secret trusts are secret but regular secret ones do not seem secret?
Answer: A secret trust is a form of express trust. A fully secret trust is even more secret because you can't even tell from the will that it exists. The only people who know about it are the settlor and the trustee (and eventually beneficiaries). It is still an express trust, because the settlor did expressly set it up - they just only told one person. Half-secret trusts are, as you say, secret about who the beneficiaries are.

# data[].attributes.headline
If HST fails who is entitled to the money ?

# data[].attributes.subject
If HST fails who is entitled to the money ?

# data[].attributes.body
Answer: not the trustee, because we know from the will that this isn't a gift to them. So the money will go back to the settlor's estate on a resulting trust. It will then go to whoever's named in the will as getting 'anything left over'.

# data[].attributes.headline
Critiquing the criteria of communication

# data[].attributes.subject
Critiquing the criteria of communication

# data[].attributes.body
When explaining the difference in timing of communication between a secret and half secret trust would it be safe to give our opinions if the difference is justified? Would we need to bring up the different theories?
Answer: it would be logical for you to summarise the reasons that have been given for the different communication requirements and then give us your opinion on whether those reasons are convincing. But remember that if a HST/ST comes up in a problem question your main task is still to advise your client on what's likely to happen to the money.

# data[].attributes.headline
How many topics is it recommended we study?

# data[].attributes.subject
How many topics is it recommended we study?

# data[].attributes.body
Answer: I can only officially recommend that you study ALL the topics. I know most of you won't, but I can't promise you a certain number that will be "safe". Clearly, revising only one topic would be stupid, as would only studying two, because one may not come up, or the two may come up in an Answer.. Either.. Or... question so that you can only choose one of them. I'm sorry, but I can't say more than that.

# data[].attributes.body
Will a problem question tell us what topic it concerns or will that be for us to infer?
Answer: that will be for you to work out by reading the facts carefully. But we won't try to trick you.

# data[].attributes.body
As equity is not a body of law in its own right, how do we approach a problem? As in how is it supposed to be structured and do we base it on the other area of law it concerns?
Answer: Most of this module focuses on Trusts. We won't be examining you on equitable remedies. Instead, you will need to either apply the rules on how an express trust must be set up properly or use rules developed in equity to work out whether beneficiaries can recover anything where there has been a breach of trust. We will only examine you on the things we taught you.

# data[].attributes.body
Will 3 questions be essays and 3 problems? and will we get a choice of all 6 or 1 from each section?
Answer: In Equity you have a free choice of answering any two of the six questions. You can pick two problems or two essays - just choose the two you are most confident in answering. Just watch out for the questions that ask you to answer BOTH a) AND b) or to answer EITHER a) OR b).

# data[].attributes.body
There are 14 topics on the module and 6 questions in the exam whereby 2 need answering. Will each question be its own independent topic? Is it worth only studying 4 topics in the hope 2 will come up?
Answer: Well, that depends on whether you are a gambler or not? I'm not, so I wouldn't have only studied four topics. Two topics can sometimes come up in the same question: three certainties and secret trusts, for example, or breach of fiduciary duty and tracing. Two of your chosen topics can come up in an either/or question so you can only pick one. Or one of your chosen topics is a question that you're not fully sure how to answer, so that's out. Four may be okay, it may not. I can't say "yes" to any particular number and promise you that will be okay, sorry. But should you reasonably expect to do well in a module if you only know less than half of it?

# data[].attributes.body
Can we have more past papers with its feedback? Thank you
Answer: the problem is that we if go back too far back, the law will have changed and/or the lecturers have changed so those past exams are no longer a good guide to what is likely to be in this year's paper.

# data[].attributes.body
I’m a bit uncertain on how this case reconciled (or attempted to) reconcile the law.
Answer: Lord Millett attempted to agree with Lord B-W in Westdeutsche by saying "yes, you're right, it's always about intention" and then added "but sometimes, it's about the absence of intention rather than the presence of intention". It's not 100% convincing, but convincing enough that there have been no cases litigated on this since. I think everyone's just accepted Lord B-W was talking waffle.

# data[].attributes.body
For dishonest assistance in problem questions, is it relevant to raise Twinsectra at all? or would it be fine to apply Royal Brunei right away?
Answer: In a problem you would only need to mention Twinsectra if the problem facts prompted you to do that, for example if the person says they have their own definition of what it means to be honest.  Then you can mention that Twinsectra seemed to suggest you needed a subjective limb but that idea was dismissed in Barlow Clowes and in later cases.

# data[].attributes.body
Do we only get only one chance for the final submission of the exam paper or more?
Answer: You can make repeated submissions until the deadline.

# data[].attributes.body
If an entire will trust fails and goes back to the testator's estate in the form of a resulting trust. Does that mean the testator is intestate and the rules of intestacy to divide the estate will apply?
I know we haven't learnt the rules of intestacy, it's just it has come up and might be worth putting in an answer i suppose.
thanks
Answer: If there's a will that's been drafted properly, then it will have what is known as a "residuary legatee" - one or more people who are named in the will as getting anything that's left over. If there's no will, it will go to whoever's entitled on intestacy. If you just write that in a problem question answer that will be great.

# data[].attributes.body
How many choices do we get from the 6 questions - for example is it a choice of 3 essay questions and 3 problem questions and we can choose either 2 essays Qs or 2 problem Qs or mix and match of the Qs?
Answer. In Equity, you can choose any two questions, it doesn't matter whether they are both problems or both essays. Just make sure you don't answer BOTH for a question that says Answer EITHER a) OR b).

# data[].attributes.body
For questions that ask us to answer both a) and b) should the answers for both be in the same essay? Would the combined answers total word count not exceed 1250 words?
Answer: Yes, you have 1250 words to answer both parts (not 1250 for each part). They're all the same essay/answer. The two parts don't have to be equal length, though (ie not 625 words each).

# data[].attributes.body
are you able to give any indication of the specific topics that may be coming up in the exam?
Answer: I can't tell you what the topics will be, sorry. But if you look at the past exam papers you should be able to get a really good idea. And look at this year's tutorial questions as well.

# data[].attributes.headline
How do we reference? do we use footnotes, bibliography or just 'Miller (1990)' for example

# data[].attributes.subject
How do we reference? do we use footnotes, bibliography or just 'Miller (1990)' for example

# data[].attributes.body
Answer: That last one is fine, or just Oughtred or Kernott for example. Be as specific as you can with Statute sections and subsections though: don't say it's in the LPA, say LPA s53(1)(c). Search your email inbox for emails from David Wilde about exam style referencing.

# data[].attributes.body
We have a word count of 1250 for each answers, what will be the minimum word count ? Thanks.
Answer: There is no minimum wordcount, but the more you write the more you can say that will get you marks. You are not going to answer a question in enough detail in 500 words, for example. I'd recommend using all the 1250 words.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi, I was wondering if subheadings will be counted towards the 1,250 word limits ? Thank you in advance for your reply.
Answer: Yes, they would, so use them sparingly. I would probably use subheadings for myself so I can see my structure more clearly as I'm writing and editing - and then delete most of them.

# data[].attributes.body
would a remedy for a breach of fiduciary duty be found in tracing? is that the only remedy available?
Answer: In this module we have mainly looked at the constructive trust as a "remedy" for breach of fiduciary duties - Boardmann v Phipps, trustees who take bribes etc.

# data[].attributes.body
Are we allowed to talk about overriding and overreaching when answering questions? I know the obvious answer is no. But if it is mistakenly mentioned in the exam, would it attract a penalty?
Answer: You've answered this yourself: it is better if you don't. We are assessing you on the things we taught you in this module. We would punish you but that's some of your 1250 words you've used without getting a lot of credit for it.
As a general tip - if you think the best way to answer the question is to use law from other modules then you've probably misunderstood the question.

# data[].attributes.body
I am struggling in terms of stating remedies/ solutions in problem question for equity. is there any advice?
Answer: What you advise the client as a solution will depend on each area. For most of the autumn term topics, you will advise on whether a trust is valid. Who does the beneficial interest end up with? From administration to third parties, look at the facts and work out the best way for the client to get their money - usually a constructive trust/tracing if there are assets worth having and a personal remedy (against a trustee, fiduciary or even a third party) if there are no assets left. Give the client useful advice.

# data[].attributes.body
I don't understand the difference between Education and Religion and finding if their charitable
Answer: I am guessing you know the difference between educating and faith generally, but are wondering if there are different tests? For both groups, they have to reach a section of the public and can't exclude the poor, but Courts rightly don't assess the merits of a religion - e.g. whether paganism is better than Buddhism etc - as that would be impossible. Whereas (like art) you have to demonstrate that the education has merit, ie that it will actually benefit people in some way (not difficult but you couldn't for example have a school for pickpockets).

# data[].attributes.headline
could we go through the steps for establishing charitable trust? 

# data[].attributes.subject
could we go through the steps for establishing charitable trust? 

# data[].attributes.body
Answer. I'm not clear what this question is. In a problem question, yes, you'd look at whether it was a charitable purpose, exclusively charitable and for public benefit.

# data[].attributes.body
1. What is the difference between purpose trusts and charities? 2. Also, is 'charitable land' a thing? If so, what does mean, and does it have any bearing on this topic (or any other topic generally)?
Answer: (1) You can see charities as a "sub-group" of purpose trusts (because they are for a purpose although technically they don't all have to be trusts). They are purpose trusts that work - against the general rule. (2) I guess charitable land is land that is being used for a charitable purpose and then has to continue to be used that way. Is that something we've taught you? If not, it's not likely to come up.

# data[].attributes.body
How many questions are we required to answer for the exam?
Answer: Two questions. They don't have to be one essay or one problem. You can choose any one of the six. But beware of the questions that ask you to answer EITHER a) OR b) and only answer one of those.

# data[].attributes.body
when we have unique property can we have specific performance?
This question arose while reading the Oughtred v IRC 1960 case
Answer: SP is an equitable remedy. You only get an equitable remedy where damages wouldn't be enough / get you a fair outcome. So if I offered to sell you shares in a company that's listed on the stock exchange, damages WILL be an adequate remedy because you can just buy some other ones that way. But if I offered to buy you shares in PRIVATE ltd company then damages WON'T be an adequate remedy because there's no other way for me to get hold of those shares. Money won't compensate. So it's only when it's an offer to sell unique property that you can get SP. And it's only where you can get SP that a constructive trust arises (because equity would eventually make you hand the private shares over as it won't let you get away with behaving unconscionably).

# data[].attributes.body
Please could we have an overview of constructive trusts? Particularly the distinction in joint and single name cases, and the criticisms EACH category faces (from the assessed feedback, it was interesting to read that we were expected to critically analyse that aspect). the two categories are  quite confusing, and jumbled together. Just a refresher? Thank you :)
Answer: I don't want to be rude, but I feel I have done that in the lectures already. They're recorded and available on YuJa on BB.
Also, there won't be an essay question on CICTs in the exam. That would be too similar. If it's there, it will be a problem question.