What You Need To Know About Wills And Trusts Exam Questions And Answers
Law students spend an unreasonable amount of time trying to find reliable practice material for this subject. It is not complicated in theory but the exam format catches people out. I have been grading these papers for twelve years and the pattern never really changes. The exam tests two separate but overlapping areas. Wills covers the formal requirements for a valid testamentary document and the rules around revocation, republication, and the execution of codicils. Trusts covers creation, certainty, perpetuity, and the duties of trustees. Most students treat them as one blob and it shows in their marks. Here is what happens when you sit the paper. The first question is usually a problem question on valid will execution under the Wills Act 1837. You need to check section 9 immediately. Two witnesses present at the same time, the testator signs or acknowledges in their presence, and each witness attests and signs. That is the baseline. Anything deviating from that sequence loses marks fast.
I had a student once who wrote a three-page answer about the mental capacity test in Banks v Goodfellow and completely missed the fact that the will had not been properly witnessed. The question gave you the date and the signature block right at the top. He spent twelve minutes on capacity and got half a mark for the whole thing. Do not make that mistake.
How The Problem Question Structure Works
Most exams follow a predictable shape. You get a scenario with multiple characters and several events happening over time. The trick is to map out the timeline first. Write it on your blue book before you start arguing about anything else. Step one is identification. What are the issues here? Is there a living will? Was there a later will that revoked the earlier one? Are there any trusts taking effect on death versus inter vivos arrangements? Get this right and the rest flows. Step two is the rule application. For wills, you apply section 9 of the Wills Act 1837 and the case law around it. For trusts, you look at the three certainties from Knight v Knight. Those are the anchors. Everything else is decoration.
Get the Full Details
There is a common trap with conditional gifts. Students love writing about condition precedent versus condition subsequent but then apply the wrong test. If the condition is impossible at the time of creation, the gift fails entirely. If it is merely uncertain, the court may sever it. Distinguish them clearly and you will stand out.
Perpetuity Rule Mistakes That Cost Marks
The rule against perpetuities is where most students bleed points. The common law rule is twenty one years after a life in being. The Law of Property Act 1925 section 164 simplified things but the examiners still love testing the traditional formulation. Here is a practical tip. When you see a gift to unborn grandchildren, check whether the class closes at the death of the testator or at some later event. If the class can remain open beyond the perpetuity period, the entire gift might fail. This is called the all or nothing rule and it is brutal. I remember one paper where the hypothetical created a trust for the testator's grandchildren who reached age twenty five. The trap was that a grandchild could be born after the testator's death and would not reach twenty five within any lives in being plus twenty one years. The gift failed. Most students thought it was fine because they focused only on the age condition and ignored the timing of birth.
Trustee Duties And Breach
The duty of care under the Trustee Act 2000 section 1 is straightforward on paper but the exam questions twist it. You need to know that the statutory duty applies to all trustee investments unless the trust instrument says otherwise. It replaced the old rule in Speight v Gaunt which allowed trustees to delegate to agents. When answering breach questions, structure your analysis around the specific duty violated. Is it the duty to act in the best interests of the beneficiaries? The duty to comply with the terms of the trust? Or the duty to exercise care and skill? Each one has different consequences. A counter intuitive point here. Not every bad investment decision is a breach. The modern standard is whether a prudent person of business would have acted that way. If the trustee followed proper advice and made an informed decision, even a loss does not automatically mean breach. This changed significantly with the Trustee Act 2000.
Common Exam Scenarios You Should Practice
Revocation by marriage is a frequent topic. Section 18 of the Wills Act 1837 says a will is revoked on marriage unless it was made in expectation of that marriage and specifically states it should not be revoked. Note the exception. Many students miss it. Another scenario involves dependent relative revocation. This is when a testator revokes a will conditional on something happening and that thing does not happen. The earlier will may be revived. It is an equitable doctrine and the courts apply it cautiously. I have seen examiners deduct marks when students treat it as automatic. For trusts, the floating charge analogy in Re Devonshire Estates comes up sometimes. When a company grants a floating charge over its assets and then becomes insolvent, the charge crystallizes. The same logic applies to certain types of trust appointments. Do not confuse the two just because they share language.
What Examiners Actually Look For
They want clear issue spotting. They do not want you to write everything you know about the topic. If the question mentions a witnessed will but does not raise capacity, do not spend four paragraphs on mental health legislation. Stay on point. Citation matters but not in the way you think. You do not need perfect pinpoint references. Getting the case name and the principle right is enough. Examiners can tell when you are guessing at citations versus when you actually know the law. Application is where the marks are. Quote the rule, state the facts from the scenario, and connect them. That is the IRAC method and it works. Students who write essays without referencing the facts lose marks even if their legal knowledge is correct.
Resources That Actually Help
The textbooks are useful but expensive. Megarry and Wade is the standard reference for equity and trusts. Hanbury and Martin covers wills and succession. Both are dense but comprehensive. For practice questions, past papers from your university are the best resource. They show you the marking scheme style and the level of detail expected. The Law Society also publishes specimen papers for the SQE which now covers these topics. Online databases like Westlaw and Lexis give you recent cases. The law changes and examiners love testing new developments. A case from five years ago might be directly relevant to this year's paper.
Time Management In The Exam
You will get roughly thirty minutes per mark. If a question is worth twenty marks, plan to spend about ten to twelve minutes on it including reading time. Do not write an eight page answer for a ten mark question. The examiner will see right through it. Skip around if you need to. If a particular sub issue stumps you, move on and come back. Leaving blank sections is worse than writing something imperfect. Partial credit exists for a reason. Use the last ten minutes to check that you have addressed every part of the question. I have seen students miss the second limb of a two part question and lose ten percent of available marks for carelessness. It is preventable.
When You Should Consult A Solicitor
If you are dealing with an actual will or trust dispute outside of exams, get professional advice. The rules are technical and the consequences of getting them wrong can be permanent. This guide is for academic purposes only. Similarly, if you are preparing for the SQE or bar exam, consider a preparation course. The volume of material is large and self study without guidance often leads to gaps in knowledge. Good luck with your studies. These subjects are challenging but manageable if you focus on the black letter law and practice applying it consistently.
