Conflict of Laws MCQ Practice — UoL LLB

Exam intelligence

All topics in Conflict of Laws

Every topic in the knowledge graph — mapped from the official syllabus and textbook.

Conflict of Laws
Introduction to Conflict of Laws
Bumper Development Corp. v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [1991] 1 WLR 1362
Phrantzes v Argenti [1960] 2 QB 19
Re Cohn [1945] Ch 5
Banque Internationale de Commerce de Petrograd v Goukassow [1923] 2 KB 682
Boys v Chaplin [1971] AC 356
Jones v Trollope Colls Cementation, The Times, January 26 1990
Leroux v Brown [1852] 12 CB 801
Rome Convention
Law of Property Act 1925 s.184
Rome I Regulation
Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984 s.2(1)
Fundamental concepts and issues: Characterisation
De Nicols v Curlier [1900] AC 21
Raiffeisen Zentralbank v Five Star General Trading [2001] QB 825
Ogden v Ogden [1908] P 46
Re Maldonado [1954] p.223
Macmillan Inc v Bishopsgate Investment Trust plc [1996] 1 ALL E R 585
Re Hoyles [1911] 1 Ch 179
Re Wilks [1935] Ch 645
Re Priest [1944] Ch 58
Apt v Apt [1948] P 83
Fundamental concepts and issues: The incidental question
Schwebel v Ungar [1964] 48 DLR (2d) 644
Lawrence v Lawrence [1985] Fam 106
Fundamental concepts and issues: Renvoi
Re Askew [1930] 2 Ch 259
Forgo’s case (1883)
Soulié’s case (1910)
Re Annesley [1926] Ch 692
Taczanowska v Taczanowski [1957] P 301
Re Duke of Wellington [1947] Ch 506
German Civil Code of 1900 Article 27
Rome I Regulation Article 24
Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 s.9(5)
French Civil Code Article 148
Rome II Regulation Article 24
Rome Convention Article 15
Fundamental concepts and issues: Public policy and the exclusion of foreign law
Wilkinson v Kitzinger [2007] 1 FLR 295
Trendtex Trading Corpn v Crédit Suisse [1982] AC 679
Somersett’s case [1771] 20 St Tr 1
Re Helbert Wagg & Co Ltd [1956] Ch 323
Scott v Att-Gen [1886] 11 PD 128
Mohamed v Knott [1969] 1 QB 1
Cheni v Cheni [1965] P 85
Gray v Formosa [1963] P 259
Foster v Driscoll [1929] 1 KB 470
Bamgbose v Daniel [1955] AC 107
Human Rights Act 1998
Rome Convention Article 16
Rome I Regulation Article 21
Fundamental concepts and issues: Penal, revenue and other public laws
Government of India v Taylor [1955] AC 491
Att-Gen (UK) v Heinemann Publishers Australia Pty Ltd [1988] 165 CLR 30
Att-Gen of New Zealand v Ortiz [1984] AC 1
The Antelope (1825) 10 Wheat 66
Weir v Lohr [1967] 65 DLR (2d) 717
Huntington v Attrill [1893] AC 150

Live preview

See what you'll practice

Real questions from our database — the exact format you'll get on WhatsApp.

SaveMeTutor

● online

Fundamental concepts and issues: Public policy and the exclusion of foreign law

Question 1

Which of the following best explains why English courts are reluctant to invoke public policy to exclude foreign law?

11:27 ✓✓

A Because public policy is only applicable in criminal cases, not civil disputes involving foreign law.

B Because judicial conservatism and international comity require a high threshold before overriding foreign legal systems. ✓

C Because the Rome I Regulation abolishes the public policy exception for contractual obligations.

11:27 ✓✓

✅ Correct!
Courts apply public policy sparingly to respect foreign sovereignty and legal diversity, as in Trendtex. Option A is wrong—public policy applies in civil cases; option C is false—Rome I Art 24 preserves the exception for public policy.

11:27 ✓✓

Rome II Regulation Article 24

Question 2

How does Rome II Article 24 interact with the principle of characterisation in non-contractual obligations?

11:27 ✓✓

A Public policy determines the characterisation of the claim before choice of law rules apply.

B Characterisation must occur under forum law, and only then can public policy be assessed. ✓

C Public policy can override the characterisation process to reclassify a claim as penal.

11:27 ✓✓

✅ Correct!
Characterisation is a preliminary step done under forum law (e.g., distinguishing tort from contract), after which public policy may be invoked. Rome II Art 24 applies only after the applicable law is determined.

11:27 ✓✓

Boys v Chaplin [1971] AC 356

Question 3

What was the key legal development in Boys v Chaplin [1971] AC 356 regarding the choice of law in tort?

11:27 ✓✓

A It confirmed that the law of the place of the tort (lex loci delicti) must always apply.

B It introduced the 'proper law' of the tort, allowing application of the system with the closest connection. ✓

C It established that only the law of the forum can apply to tort claims involving British citizens.

11:27 ✓✓

✅ Correct!
The House of Lords held that the proper law of the tort, not strictly lex loci delicti, should apply. This allowed flexibility where another law had a closer connection (*Boys v Chaplin* [1971] AC 356).

11:27 ✓✓

Pricing

Simple, transparent pricing

Try everything free for 3 days. No credit card needed to start.

Free Trial 3 Days

PKR 0 / 3 days

Full access — try everything before you commit.

✓ Unlimited questions
✓ All 22 subjects
✓ Instant explanations with case citations
✓ Spaced repetition (SM-2)
✓ Score tracking + weak-spot detection
✓ Exam mode with timed tests

Start Free Trial

No sign-up · No credit card · Instant access

Monthly Best Value

PKR 1,999 / month

Less than a single tutoring session. Cancel anytime.

✓ Everything in Free Trial
✓ Unlimited questions forever
✓ 70,000+ exam-quality MCQs
✓ Questions from real past papers
✓ AI-powered study plans
✓ Priority support

Start Free, Pay Later

Pay only after your 3-day trial ends

⚖️ Conflict of Laws
MCQ Practice

Top 10 exam topics

All topics in Conflict of Laws

See what you'll practice

Simple, transparent pricing

Explore other UoL LLB subjects

Ready to master Conflict of Laws?

⚖️ Conflict of LawsMCQ Practice

Top 10 exam topics

All topics in Conflict of Laws

See what you'll practice

Simple, transparent pricing

Explore other UoL LLB subjects

Ready to master Conflict of Laws?

⚖️ Conflict of Laws
MCQ Practice