Free SQE Mock Test 1 — 20 Questions + Full Answers
Solicitors Qualifying Examination · Trainee solicitors · SQE1 sits: Jan & Jul
Sections: FLK1 · Applaa proprietary paper — free to download and print
No sign-up required · 100% free · Applaa proprietary content
Applaa SQE Mock Test 1
applaa-sqe-mock-1.pdf · 20 questions
Applaa proprietary content · Free to download and print · No sign-up required
Save PDFSample Questions — SQE Mock 1
8 of 20 shownCorrect answers highlighted in green. Full explanations included.
A builder (Ryan) contractually agreed to construct a wall for a customer (Nora) for £5,000. Halfway through the job, the builder states they cannot finish unless the customer pays an extra £1,000. The customer agrees. After completion, the customer refuses to pay the extra £1,000. Under Williams v Roffey Bros, is the promise to pay the extra £1,000 binding?
- A.No, because performing an existing contractual duty can never be good consideration.
- B.Yes, if the customer obtained a practical benefit (such as avoiding a penalty clause to a third party) and there was no economic duress.
- C.No, because a promise to pay more must be approved by the County Court under CPR regulations.
- D.Yes, because oral contracts are automatically binding regardless of consideration.
- E.No, because it violates Section 52 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
✓ Worked Explanation
Core Concept: Consideration and Practical Benefit (Williams v Roffey Bros) The traditional rule (Stilk v Myrick) held that performing an existing contractual duty cannot be good consideration. Williams v Roffey Bros [1990] modified this rule: performing an existing duty CAN be valid consideration if the promisee obtains a 'practical benefit'. Step-by-Step Resolution: 1. Traditional Rule: A builder promising to finish what they're already contractually bound to do provides nothing new - no consi
A claimant (Amelia) has brought an action against a defendant (Samuel) in the County Court for breach of contract, claiming £75,000 in damages. The defendant has filed a defense. In accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), which track will this claim be allocated to?
- A.Small Claims Track
- B.Fast Track
- C.Intermediate Track
- D.Multi-Track
- E.Commercial Court Track
✓ Worked Explanation
Core Concept: CPR Track Allocation The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) allocate civil claims to one of four procedural tracks based primarily on *financial value* (and sometimes complexity). Each track has different procedural rules, costs caps, and hearing formats. Step-by-Step Resolution: 1. Identify the Claim Value: The claim is for £75,000. 2. Apply the Track Thresholds: - Small Claims Track: £10,000 (for most claims; £1,000 for personal injury/housing disrepair) - Fast Track: > £10,
A government department wishes to act under royal prerogative powers. Which of the following best describes the relationship between royal prerogative powers and statutory powers in UK constitutional law?
- A.Prerogative powers always override conflicting statutory provisions.
- B.Where a statutory power is enacted covering the same area as a prerogative power, the statutory power supersedes and frustrates the prerogative power (De Keyser's Royal Hotel Case).
- C.Prerogative powers can only be modified by the monarch without parliamentary assent.
- D.Prerogative powers are not subject to judicial review under any circumstances.
- E.Prerogative powers must be re-authorised by Parliament every five years.
✓ Worked Explanation
Core Concept: Royal Prerogative vs. Statute (De Keyser's Hotel Principle) The Royal Prerogative encompasses powers exercised by the Crown (in practice, the government) without statutory authority. However, Parliament's sovereignty means that when statute *covers the same ground* as a prerogative power, the statute takes precedence. Step-by-Step Resolution: 1. What is the Prerogative?: Powers historically derived from the Crown: making treaties, declaring war, granting pardons, etc. 2. De Keyser
An employee of Beacon Solutions LLP negligently injures a customer (Yasmine) while driving a company delivery van to make a scheduled delivery. The customer sues Beacon Solutions LLP. What is the legal doctrine that allows the employer to be held liable, and what is the test?
- A.Res Ipsa Loquitur; requires showing the van was in a defective condition.
- B.Vicarious liability; requires showing that the employee committed a tort in the course of their employment.
- C.Strict liability; requires showing the employer acted with malicious intent.
- D.Privity of liability; requires a signed agreement between the employer and the customer.
- E.Contributory liability; requires allocating the claim to the Multi-Track.
✓ Worked Explanation
Core Concept: Vicarious Liability Vicarious liability makes an employer strictly liable for torts committed by their employee, where the tort occurs in the 'course of employment'. It is a form of secondary liability - the employer is liable even without their own fault. Step-by-Step Resolution: 1. Identify the Employer-Employee Relationship: The delivery driver is an employee of Beacon Solutions LLP (not an independent contractor). 2. Course of Employment Test: Was the tort committed while perf
A claimant (Grace) makes a valid CPR Part 36 settlement offer to the defendant (Bob) of £18,500. The defendant rejects the offer. The case goes to trial, and the claimant wins, obtaining judgment of £21,275. What is the primary costs consequence under Part 36?
- A.The claimant must pay the defendant's costs on the indemnity basis.
- B.The defendant must pay the claimant's costs on the indemnity basis, plus interest on those costs, from the expiry of the relevant offer period.
- C.The court will split the trial costs equally between both parties.
- D.All costs recovery is capped at the Small Claims Track limit.
- E.The defendant is immune to costs penalties because they defended the claim in good faith.
✓ Worked Explanation
Core Concept: CPR Part 36 Offers and Cost Consequences A Part 36 offer is a formal settlement mechanism under CPR. When a claimant's Part 36 offer is beaten at trial (i.e., judgment exceeds the offer), the defendant faces automatic cost penalties designed to encourage early settlement. Step-by-Step Resolution: 1. Grace's Offer: £18,500 - a valid Part 36 offer. 2. Bob's Decision: Rejected the offer and proceeded to trial. 3. Trial Outcome: Grace wins £21,275 - which *exceeds* the Part 36 offer.
The directors of Pinnacle Ventures Ltd wish to allot new ordinary shares for cash. The company's articles do not exclude pre-emption rights. Which of the following resolutions of the shareholders is required to disapply the statutory pre-emption rights under the Companies Act 2006?
- A.An ordinary resolution with a simple majority (over 50%).
- B.A special resolution with a 75% majority of votes cast.
- C.A written resolution signed by 100% of the shareholders.
- D.An extraordinary resolution requiring a 90% majority.
- E.No resolution is required; the directors can disapply pre-emption rights by a board resolution.
✓ Worked Explanation
Core Concept: Disapplying Pre-Emption Rights (Sections 570/571 CA 2006) Pre-emption rights protect existing shareholders from dilution by giving them the right to purchase newly allotted shares in proportion to their holdings. To *disapply* these statutory rights requires a special resolution (75% majority). Step-by-Step Resolution: 1. Understand Pre-Emption Rights: Under Section 561 CA 2006, when directors allot equity securities for cash, existing shareholders have a right of first refusal (p
A customer (Emma) is walking down a warehouse aisle when a heavy crate falls from a high shelf and injures them. The claimant has no evidence of what exactly caused the crate to fall. Can the claimant rely on the doctrine of 'Res Ipsa Loquitur'?
- A.No, because the claimant must prove the exact negligent act to bring a claim.
- B.Yes, if the thing causing the accident was under the sole control of the defendant, and the accident is one that does not occur in the ordinary course of things without negligence.
- C.No, because Res Ipsa Loquitur only applies to breach of contract claims.
- D.Yes, but the claimant's damages are automatically capped at £10,000.
- E.No, unless the defendant has already been convicted in a criminal court.
✓ Worked Explanation
Core Concept: Res Ipsa Loquitur ('The Thing Speaks for Itself') Res ipsa loquitur is an evidentiary doctrine that *shifts the evidential burden* to the defendant to provide an explanation for an accident. It assists claimants who cannot identify the exact cause of an accident but can show the circumstances make negligence the most probable explanation. Step-by-Step Resolution: 1. Three Requirements (Scott v London and St Katherine Docks [1865]): - The *thing* causing harm was under the defen
A claimant (Philip) has applied for summary judgment against a defendant (James) under CPR Part 24. What is the test that the court must apply to determine whether summary judgment should be granted?
- A.The claimant must prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt.
- B.The defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim, and there is no other compelling reason why the case should be disposed of at trial.
- C.The value of the claim must be less than £10,000.
- D.The defendant has failed to acknowledge service of the claim form within 14 days.
- E.The dispute involves questions of international law.
✓ Worked Explanation
Core Concept: Summary Judgment under CPR Part 24 Summary judgment allows a party to obtain judgment *without a full trial* where the opposing party's case has no real prospect of success. It is a cost-effective tool that avoids unnecessary litigation. Step-by-Step Resolution: 1. Who Can Apply: Either the claimant or defendant can apply for summary judgment under CPR Part 24.2. 2. The Test: The court will grant summary judgment if: - The defendant has no real prospect of successfully defendin
Download the PDF for all 20 questions + full mark scheme
Download PDFFrequently Asked Questions
Is this SQE mock exam free?+
Yes. All 250 Applaa SQE mock exams are completely free — no registration, no paywall. Download PDF or view in browser.
What is FLK1 in the SQE exam?+
FLK1 (Functioning Legal Knowledge 1) is the first part of the SQE1 assessment, testing substantive and procedural law across multiple legal practice areas with multiple-choice questions. Each Applaa SQE mock covers FLK1-style questions with full explanations.
How many SQE practice questions are in each mock?+
Each Applaa SQE mock test contains 20 functioning legal knowledge questions with worked explanations, mirroring the question style of the real SQE1 assessment.
Are these SQE mock papers relevant for 2025?+
Yes. Applaa's SQE mock papers are updated for the current SQE1 syllabus and are suitable for candidates sitting SQE1 in 2025 and 2026.
Download This Mock
Free PDF — 20 questions with worked answers. Print it or attempt offline.
Download PDF FreeNo sign-up · No paywall · Applaa proprietary
Paper Info
- Exam
- SQE
- Mock number
- 1 of 250
- Questions
- 20
- Format
- Multiple Choice (MCQ)
- Sections
- 1
- Audience
- Trainee solicitors
- Timing
- SQE1 sits: Jan & Jul
- Copyright
- Applaa Proprietary
Sections Covered
- FLK1
AI step-by-step guidance
Appy Buddy in the Applaa desktop app guides you through every question with Socratic AI tutoring — explains why each answer is right or wrong.
Download Applaa Free