SQE1 Essential Cases: The 50 Cases You Must Know by Name and 100+ Where the Principle Is Enough

The Two-Tier Case Rule the SRA Almost Hides

There is a sentence buried in the SRA SQE1 Assessment Specification that solves a question most candidates never think to ask. Paraphrased, it says:

Some case names are required knowledge because the case is commonly used in legal practice to describe a legal principle — for example, Rylands v Fletcher. In all other circumstances, candidates are not required to recall specific case names.

That single sentence reshapes how you should be revising. It tells you that the SQE1 has a two-tier case requirement: a small set of cases where you must know the name and the principle, and a much larger set where the principle is enough. Most candidates over-prepare the second tier (memorising hundreds of case names) and under-prepare the first tier (the cases that are actually examinable by name).

This guide does the consolidation. It lists the 50 cases you should know by name and ratio, then the 100+ cases where the principle is sufficient, organised by subject. Use it as a single revision reference alongside our subject-level guides such as the Tort Law revision guide, Contract Law revision guide, and Land Law revision guide.

A note on tier assignment. The SRA does not publish an exhaustive list of "must know by name" cases. The list below is built from (a) the SRA's published examples (e.g. Rylands v Fletcher), (b) cases routinely cited by name in current practitioner usage (so a competent solicitor would expect to encounter the case name), and (c) cases whose name regularly appears in published SQE1 sample questions. Where a case is borderline, we have erred on the side of including it in tier 1.

Tier 1: The 50 Cases You Should Know by Name and Ratio

Tort Law (10)

1. Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 — duty of care; the neighbour principle.
2. Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 — three-stage test for duty of care (foreseeability, proximity, fair-just-reasonable).
3. Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 583 — professional standard of care.
4. Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority [1998] AC 232 — Bolam qualified by logical analysis.
5. The Wagon Mound (No 1) [1961] AC 388 — remoteness; reasonable foreseeability.
6. Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital [1969] 1 QB 428 — "but for" causation.
7. Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services [2003] 1 AC 32 — material contribution to risk in mesothelioma cases.
8. Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330 — strict liability for escape of dangerous things.
9. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 1 AC 310 — psychiatric injury; secondary victims.
10. Page v Smith [1996] AC 155 — psychiatric injury; primary victims.

Contract Law (10)

1. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256 — unilateral contracts; offer to the world.
2. Hyde v Wrench (1840) 49 ER 132 — counter-offer destroys original offer.
3. Adams v Lindsell (1818) 106 ER 250 — postal acceptance rule.
4. Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Ex 341 — remoteness of damages; two-limb test.
5. Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) [1991] 1 QB 1 — practical benefit as consideration.
6. Pinnel's Case (1602) 5 Co Rep 117a — part payment of debt insufficient.
7. Foakes v Beer (1884) 9 App Cas 605 — Pinnel affirmed by House of Lords.
8. Felthouse v Bindley (1862) 142 ER 1037 — silence cannot amount to acceptance.
9. L'Estrange v F Graucob Ltd [1934] 2 KB 394 — signature binds, regardless of reading.
10. The Moorcock (1889) 14 PD 64 — implied terms; business efficacy.

Criminal Law (8)

1. R v Woollin [1999] 1 AC 82 — oblique intention; virtual certainty.
2. R v Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396 — subjective recklessness (original test).
3. R v G [2003] UKHL 50 — modern subjective recklessness test.
4. R v Jordan (1956) 40 Cr App R 152 — novus actus interveniens; medical treatment.
5. R v Smith [1959] 2 QB 35 — operating and substantial cause of death.
6. R v Brown [1994] 1 AC 212 — limits on consent in s47/s20 OAPA.
7. R v Ghosh [1982] QB 1053 — historic dishonesty test; now superseded by Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67.
8. R v Hinks [2001] 2 AC 241 — appropriation of validly transferred property.

Land Law (8)

1. Williams & Glyn's Bank Ltd v Boland [1981] AC 487 — overriding interests; actual occupation.
2. Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17 — common intention constructive trust; family home.
3. Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53 — Stack applied; quantification of beneficial shares.
4. Re Ellenborough Park [1956] Ch 131 — four-stage test for an easement.
5. Wheeldon v Burrows (1879) 12 Ch D 31 — implied easements on disposition.
6. Tulk v Moxhay (1848) 41 ER 1143 — restrictive covenants run with land in equity.
7. Hunt v Luck [1902] 1 Ch 428 — actual notice and constructive notice in unregistered land.
8. Aldred's Case (1610) 9 Co Rep 57b — easements of light.

Trusts Law (6)

1. Knight v Knight (1840) 49 ER 58 — three certainties.
2. Saunders v Vautier (1841) 49 ER 282 — beneficiaries collapse trust if all consent and absolutely entitled.
3. Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46 — fiduciary duty; profit from position.
4. Keech v Sandford (1726) 25 ER 223 — fiduciary; renewal of lease.
5. Re Vandervell (No 2) [1974] Ch 269 — automatic resulting trust.
6. Westdeutsche Landesbank v Islington LBC [1996] AC 669 — trust requires conscience; prima facie resulting trust.

Business Law and Practice (4)

1. Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22 — separate corporate personality.
2. Foss v Harbottle (1843) 67 ER 189 — proper claimant rule.
3. Cobbe v Yeoman's Row Management [2008] UKHL 55 — proprietary estoppel limits.
4. Re Brumark Investments / Spectrum Plus [2005] UKHL 41 — fixed vs floating charges.

Property Practice (2)

1. Johnson v Agnew [1980] AC 367 — election between specific performance and damages.
2. Raineri v Miles [1981] AC 1050 — completion delay damages.

Wills and Administration of Estates (2)

1. Ilott v The Blue Cross [2017] UKSC 17 — Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.
2. Marley v Rawlings [2014] UKSC 2 — interpretation and rectification of wills.

These 50 cases are the ones where a candidate confidently saying "this is the Caparo test" or "this is the Donoghue v Stevenson duty principle" reflects how a practising solicitor would discuss the area. If you can name and articulate the ratio of all 50, you are in strong shape.

Tier 2: Cases Where the Principle Is Enough

A much longer list. The cases below establish principles that the SQE1 will test, but the case names themselves are not required. You can apply the principles correctly without recalling the case name.

This is where many candidates over-prepare. Memorising 200 case names you do not need to recall is an extremely inefficient use of revision hours. The SRA wants you to know the law, not the citation.

We list these cases by subject below, with the principle each one establishes. Use this as a recognition tool — when you see a case mentioned, you should recognise the principle, but you do not need to recall the case name from a cold prompt.

Contract Law (Tier 2)

• Currie v Misa — definition of consideration.
• Stilk v Myrick — performance of an existing duty is not consideration.
• Hartley v Ponsonby — exceeding existing duty can be consideration.
• Re McArdle — past consideration is no consideration (with exceptions).
• Lampleigh v Brathwait — exception to past consideration where requested.
• Pao On v Lau Yiu Long — economic duress requirements.
• Universe Tankships v ITWF — illegitimate pressure in duress.
• D&C Builders v Rees — promissory estoppel and inequitable conduct.
• Central London Property Trust v High Trees House — promissory estoppel established.
• Hong Kong Fir Shipping v Kawasaki — innominate terms test.
• The Mihalis Angelos — distinguishing conditions and warranties.
• Photo Production v Securicor — exclusion clauses survive fundamental breach.
• Smith v Hughes — objective test of agreement.
• Bisset v Wilkinson — opinion is not misrepresentation.
• Edgington v Fitzmaurice — statement of intention can be misrepresentation.
• Howard Marine v Ogden — innocent misrepresentation; care and skill duty.
• Bell v Lever Brothers — common mistake; high threshold.
• Couturier v Hastie — mistake as to existence of subject matter.
• Cundy v Lindsay — written-distance unilateral mistake voids contract.
• Lewis v Averay — face-to-face unilateral mistake renders voidable.

Tort Law (Tier 2)

• Anns v Merton — superseded by Caparo; mention as historical context.
• Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire — police duty of care limited.
• Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire — Hill reframed; positive acts can ground duty.
• Smith v Leech Brain — eggshell skull rule.
• Hughes v Lord Advocate — type of harm foreseeable, not exact mechanism.
• Doughty v Turner Manufacturing — mechanism unforeseeable; no liability.
• Lister v Hesley Hall — close connection test for vicarious liability.
• Mohamud v Wm Morrison Supermarkets — close connection extended.
• Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society — vicarious liability and stage one.
• Wilkinson v Downton — intentional infliction of harm.
• Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather — Rylands v Fletcher; foreseeability.
• Read v J Lyons — Rylands v Fletcher; escape required.
• Transco v Stockport MBC — modern Rylands v Fletcher refinement.
• Bourhill v Young — psychiatric injury; foreseeability.
• McLoughlin v O'Brian — psychiatric injury; proximity.
• Cattle v Stockton Waterworks — pure economic loss; relational cases.
• Hedley Byrne v Heller — economic loss from negligent statements.
• White v Jones — solicitor's duty to disappointed beneficiary.
• Murphy v Brentwood DC — economic loss; defective buildings.
• Sayers v Harlow UDC — contributory negligence.

Criminal Law (Tier 2)

• DPP v Smith — historic intention test; superseded.
• R v Mohan — direct intention defined.
• Hyam v DPP — superseded oblique intention.
• R v Nedrick — Woollin precursor.
• R v Caldwell — superseded objective recklessness test.
• R v Adomako — gross negligence manslaughter.
• R v Latimer — transferred malice.
• Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner — continuing act doctrine.
• R v Miller — assumed responsibility; failure to act.
• R v Stone and Dobinson — duty of care; failure to act.
• Thabo Meli v R — preceding act and intention.
• R v Church — unlawful act manslaughter; objective dangerousness.
• R v Lamb — unlawful act required; not just dangerous act.
• DPP v Newbury — unlawful act manslaughter.
• R v Williams (Gladstone) — mistake of fact in self-defence.
• R v Hatton — voluntary intoxication and mistake.
• R v Howe — duress not available for murder.
• R v Hasan — duress; voluntary association with criminals.
• R v Graham — duress two-stage test.
• R v Quayle — duress; "no evasive action" requirement.
• R v Kingston — involuntary intoxication and mens rea.
• R v Majewski — voluntary intoxication and basic-intent crimes.
• R v Kennedy (No 2) — supply of drugs; novus actus.
• DPP v Camplin — provocation; characteristics relevant.
• R v Smith (Morgan) — superseded provocation case.
• Attorney General's Reference (No 3 of 1994) — transferred malice limits.
• Ivey v Genting Casinos — modern dishonesty test.
• R v Gomez — appropriation of property.

Land Law (Tier 2)

• Lloyds Bank v Rosset — common intention constructive trust; pre-Stack test.
• Pettitt v Pettitt — historic family home approach.
• Burns v Burns — historic constructive trust position.
• Hunter v Babbage — severance by written notice.
• AG Securities v Vaughan — multiple occupation; tenancy or licence?
• Street v Mountford — exclusive possession; lease vs licence.
• Hammersmith and Fulham LBC v Monk — joint tenancy; serving notice.
• Goodman v Gallant — express declaration of joint tenancy decisive.
• Crow v Wood — necessity for easement.
• Hill v Tupper — easement requires accommodation, not personal benefit.
• Moncrieff v Jamieson — exclusive parking can be easement.
• Re Walker — adverse possession factors.
• Pye v Graham — adverse possession; intention to possess.
• Buchanan-Wollaston Conveyance — section 14 TLATA dispute.
• Re Ellenborough Park (also tier 1 — included for cross-reference).

Trusts Law (Tier 2)

• Re Tuck's Settlement Trusts — certainty of objects; conceptual uncertainty.
• McPhail v Doulton — discretionary trusts; "is or is not" test.
• Re Baden's Deed Trusts (No 2) — application of McPhail.
• Milroy v Lord — every gift either valid or void; equity will not perfect imperfect.
• Re Rose — equitable assignment; constitution.
• T Choithram International v Pagarani — Re Rose extended.
• Re Vandervell (No 1) — automatic resulting trust on transfer of legal title only.
• Quistclose Investments v Rolls Razor — purpose trust on loan.
• Dyer v Dyer — presumption of resulting trust.
• Lloyds Bank v Rosset (also tier 2 in Land Law) — constructive trust quantification.
• Speight v Gaunt — trustee's duty of care historic test.
• Bartlett v Barclays Bank — trustee's investment duty.
• Target Holdings v Redferns — equitable compensation for breach of trust.
• Re Diplock — tracing in equity.
• Foskett v McKeown — modern tracing through mixed funds.
• Westdeutsche Landesbank v Islington LBC (also tier 1) — restitution and constructive trust.

Business Law and Practice (Tier 2)

• Adams v Cape Industries — limits on piercing corporate veil.
• Prest v Petrodel Resources — modern position on veil-piercing.
• Macaura v Northern Assurance — separate personality and insurable interest.
• Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas — variation of class rights.
• Re Yenidje Tobacco — quasi-partnership.
• O'Neill v Phillips — unfair prejudice petitions.
• Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society v Meyer — unfair prejudice.
• Re Smith and Fawcett — directors' duty of good faith.
• Cook v Deeks — corporate opportunity; profit from position.
• Aberdeen Railway v Blaikie Brothers — directors' conflicts of interest.
• Regal Hastings v Gulliver — strict no-profit rule.
• Item Software v Fassihi — directors' duty to disclose own breach.

Wills and Administration of Estates (Tier 2)

• Banks v Goodfellow — testamentary capacity test.
• Parker v Felgate — capacity at time of instructions.
• Wintle v Nye — undue influence; persuasion not enough.
• Re Beaumont — Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 dependants.
• Re Rose (also Trusts Tier 2) — donatio mortis causa parallels.
• Williams v Williams — mutual wills.

Solicitors Accounts and Ethics (Tier 2)

These are typically tested by reference to the SRA Accounts Rules and the SRA Code of Conduct themselves — case-name memorisation is not required. The relevant authorities are statutory/regulatory: the SRA Code of Conduct, SRA Accounts Rules, and the SRA Standards and Regulations 2024.

For ethics scenarios, the principles to know are derived from the Code, not from case law.

How to Use This List in Revision

Two passes, two approaches

For Tier 1, do active recall the way you would for a flashcard: case name on the front, ratio on the back. A 50-card deck is small — most candidates can master it in 3–4 weeks of daily review. Use our SQE1 flashcard strategy protocol.

For Tier 2, the right approach is recognition rather than recall. When the case appears in a question or in your reading, recognise the principle. Do not waste hours memorising "Re McArdle" — instead, when reading "A had cleared B's mortgage and B promised payment after the fact," your brain should produce "past consideration is generally no consideration." That is the SRA's actual standard.

Embed cases into question practice

Cases are most useful when you encounter them inside a practice question scenario. The best memorisation comes from working through 30–50 questions per topic, recognising the principle in each fact pattern, and reviewing the case where the principle was established. After 200–300 questions on a subject, the relevant cases stick by repeated exposure, not by deliberate memorisation.

Use the subject revision guides for context

Each of our subject revision guides cites the relevant cases in context. Read the Tort Law, Contract Law, Land Law, Trusts Law, Criminal Law, and Business Law guides for full coverage.

Skip the historical detours

Every common law subject has 200 years of case law. The SQE1 cares about current law — the principles a practising solicitor in 2026 needs to know. If a textbook spends two pages on a 1932 case that has been superseded by a 2003 House of Lords decision, focus on the 2003 decision unless the older case still represents the law (e.g. Donoghue v Stevenson itself).

A Note on Pre-1925 Cases

Several of the foundational cases on this list (e.g. Hyde v Wrench 1840, Adams v Lindsell 1818) are pre-1925. They remain good law because the principles they establish are still cited as the modern position. You should know them — but recognise that the SQE1 tests the principles in modern factual scenarios, not in mock-Victorian scenarios.

If a case has been overruled or substantially modified (e.g. R v Caldwell by R v G), focus on the current authority. Knowing the historical case is occasionally useful for context but rarely tested directly.

Where to Go From Here

The two-tier case rule is one of the SQE1's most useful clarifications. Most candidates over-prepare cases that are not tested by name and under-prepare the ones that are. Use the list above as a focused reference and free up your hours for the work that actually scores: practice questions, topic-level tracking, and the revision discipline that turns recognition into recall.

• See the SRA's specification: SQE1 Assessment Specification
• Apply the cases through practice: SQE1 quick quiz
• Full bank with topic-level tracking: pricing
• Subject deep-dives: Tort Law · Contract Law · Land Law · Trusts Law · Criminal Law · Business Law
• Build the flashcard layer for tier 1: SQE1 flashcard strategy
• High-yield prioritisation: SQE1 high-yield topics guide
• Avoid the case-memorisation trap: Most common SQE1 study mistakes
• The SRA's free official questions: SRA SQE1 sample questions guide

Memorise the 50. Recognise the 100+. Spend the freed-up hours where the marks actually live.