Exam Prep
50 Must-Know Cases for UK Law Exams
10 min read
These are the 50 cases that come up again and again across UK law exams — the LLB, GDL, SQE1, CILEX and BPTC all draw on the same canon. They are grouped below by the seven Foundations of Legal Knowledge modules, with a one-line ratio for each: the single proposition the case stands for. Learn the name, the year, and that one line, and you can cite it fluently under exam pressure.
How to use this list. Don’t try to read all fifty in one sitting. Take one module at a time, turn each case into a flashcard (name on one side, ratio and facts on the other), and review on a schedule so spaced repetition does the remembering for you. When you need the full facts, holding and key passages, open the AI brief for any case on Caselaw and read the judgment knowing exactly what you’re looking for.
Contract Law
- Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256 — a unilateral offer to the world is accepted by performance; the deposited money showed an intention to be bound.
- Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341 — damages for breach are limited to losses arising naturally or within the parties' reasonable contemplation.
- Stilk v Myrick (1809) 2 Camp 317 — performing a pre-existing contractual duty is not good consideration for a promise of more pay.
- Williams v Roffey Bros [1991] 1 QB 1 — a practical benefit can amount to valid consideration where there is no economic duress.
- Hedley Byrne v Heller [1964] AC 465 — a negligent misstatement is actionable where a special relationship and an assumption of responsibility exist.
- Pharmaceutical Society v Boots [1953] 1 QB 401 — goods displayed on a shelf are an invitation to treat, not an offer.
- Krell v Henry [1903] 2 KB 740 — frustration discharges a contract when the common purpose underlying it is destroyed.
- L'Estrange v Graucob [1934] 2 KB 394 — a person is bound by a signed contractual document even if they did not read it.
Tort Law
- Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 — the neighbour principle: a duty of care is owed to those so closely and directly affected that you ought to have them in contemplation.
- Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 — duty of care turns on foreseeability, proximity, and whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose one.
- Nettleship v Weston [1971] 2 QB 691 — the standard of care is objective; a learner driver is judged against the competent qualified driver.
- Bolam v Friern Hospital [1957] 1 WLR 582 — a professional is not negligent if acting in line with a responsible body of professional opinion (cf. Bolitho).
- The Wagon Mound (No 1) [1961] AC 388 — remoteness in negligence depends on the reasonable foreseeability of the kind of damage suffered.
- Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330 — strict liability arises for the escape of a dangerous thing brought onto land in a non-natural use.
- Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [2018] UKSC 4 — duty is established by precedent and analogy; Caparo's full test is not applied to every routine case.
- Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11 — doctors must disclose material risks that a reasonable patient would attach significance to.
Criminal Law
- R v Woollin [1999] 1 AC 82 — oblique intent: a jury may find intention where death or GBH was a virtual certainty that the defendant foresaw.
- R v Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396 — recklessness means the defendant foresaw a risk and went on to take it (subjective test).
- R v G [2003] UKHL 50 — confirmed subjective recklessness and overruled the objective Caldwell test.
- Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67 — dishonesty is judged by the objective standards of ordinary decent people, displacing the Ghosh test.
- R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8 — foresight of the principal's crime is evidence of intent to assist, not a substitute for it; corrected joint enterprise.
- R v Adomako [1995] 1 AC 171 — gross negligence manslaughter where a breach of duty creates a serious and obvious risk of death.
- R v Brown [1994] 1 AC 212 — consent is not a defence to actual or grievous bodily harm inflicted for sado-masochistic gratification.
- R v Miller [1983] 2 AC 161 — liability for omission where the defendant creates a dangerous situation and fails to take steps to counter it.
Land Law
- Street v Mountford [1985] AC 809 — exclusive possession for a term at a rent creates a lease whatever label the parties use.
- Williams & Glyn's Bank v Boland [1981] AC 487 — a beneficial interest coupled with actual occupation can be an overriding interest binding a lender.
- Lloyds Bank v Rosset [1991] 1 AC 107 — a common intention constructive trust needs an express agreement or a direct financial contribution.
- AG Securities v Vaughan [1990] 1 AC 417 — separate, independent agreements without joint exclusive possession create licences, not a joint tenancy.
- Hunter v Canary Wharf [1997] AC 655 — private nuisance protects only those with a proprietary interest in the affected land.
- Tulk v Moxhay (1848) 41 ER 1143 — a restrictive covenant can bind a later purchaser of the land who takes with notice of it.
Equity & Trusts
- Knight v Knight (1840) 3 Beav 148 — a valid express trust requires the three certainties: intention, subject matter and objects.
- Milroy v Lord (1862) 4 De GF & J 264 — equity will not perfect an imperfect gift nor treat a failed transfer as a self-declaration of trust.
- Paul v Constance [1977] 1 WLR 527 — an express trust can be declared informally through words and conduct without using the word 'trust'.
- McPhail v Doulton [1971] AC 424 — a discretionary trust is valid if it can be said with certainty whether any given person is or is not an object.
- Keech v Sandford (1726) Sel Cas Ch 61 — a trustee must not profit from the trust; the strict no-conflict rule applies even where the trust could not benefit.
- Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17 — in the shared family home, beneficial shares are inferred from the parties' whole course of dealing.
Constitutional & Administrative Law
- Entick v Carrington (1765) 19 St Tr 1029 — state action against the citizen requires positive legal authority; there is no general power to search.
- M v Home Office [1994] 1 AC 377 — ministers are not above the law; the courts can find contempt against the Crown's servants.
- Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury [1948] 1 KB 223 — a decision so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could reach it is unlawful.
- Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister (GCHQ) [1985] AC 374 — the grounds of judicial review are illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety.
- R (Miller) v Secretary of State [2017] UKSC 5 — triggering Article 50 to leave the EU required an Act of Parliament, not the prerogative.
- R (Miller) v Prime Minister [2019] UKSC 41 — the prorogation of Parliament was justiciable and unlawful as it frustrated Parliament's functions.
- Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593 — Hansard may be consulted to resolve ambiguity when interpreting a statute.
Human Rights & EU Law
- Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30 — s.3 HRA requires legislation to be read compatibly with Convention rights so far as it is possible to do so.
- A v Secretary of State (Belmarsh) [2004] UKHL 56 — indefinite detention of foreign terror suspects was incompatible with Articles 5 and 14 ECHR.
- R (Daly) v SSHD [2001] UKHL 26 — where a fundamental right is engaged, proportionality demands a more intense review than Wednesbury.
- R v Horncastle [2009] UKSC 14 — UK courts may decline to follow a Strasbourg decision where domestic procedural safeguards are sufficient.
- Factortame (No 2) [1991] 1 AC 603 — courts could disapply an Act of Parliament that conflicted with directly effective EU law (historical, pre-Brexit).
- Marshall v Southampton AHA [1986] ECR 723 — directives have vertical direct effect against the state but not horizontal effect between individuals (historical).
- Van Gend en Loos [1963] ECR 1 — EU law can confer rights on individuals that national courts must protect (foundational, historical).
Make them stick. Reading a case list once does almost nothing for recall. Drill these fifty with spaced-repetition flashcards, test yourself against exam-style quizzes, and practise applying them under timed conditions with our past papers. For a deeper dive on one subject, see the 50 must-know contract law cases guide. To read the full judgment and an AI brief for any case above, just search it on Caselaw.