Free SQE Mock Test 129 — 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 129
applaa-sqe-mock-129.pdf · 20 questions
Applaa proprietary content · Free to download and print · No sign-up required
Save PDFSample Questions — SQE Mock 129
8 of 20 shownCorrect answers highlighted in green. Full explanations included.
A builder (Philip) contractually agreed to construct a wall for a customer (Charlotte) 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 director of Falcon Security Ltd (a private company limited by shares) wants to allot new shares to a new investor (Liam) to raise capital of £18,500. The company has only one class of ordinary shares. Under the Companies Act 2006, which of the following is correct regarding the director's authority to allot these shares?
- A.The director has automatic statutory authority to allot the shares without shareholder approval under Section 550, unless restricted by the articles.
- B.The director must always obtain authorization by ordinary resolution of the shareholders under Section 551.
- C.The director must obtain authorization by special resolution of the shareholders to allot any shares.
- D.The director requires the approval of the Board of Trade before alloting any class of shares.
- E.Authority is only required if the allotment would cause the company to exceed its authorised share capital as stated in the memorandum.
✓ Worked Explanation
Core Concept: Director's Authority to Allot Shares (Section 550 CA 2006) The Companies Act 2006 grants directors of private companies with a single class of shares a specific statutory power to allot shares of that class without requiring shareholder approval - unless the articles restrict this. Step-by-Step Resolution: 1. Identify Company Type: Falcon Security Ltd is a *private* company limited by shares with *one* class of ordinary shares. 2. Apply Section 550: Directors of such a company hav
A builder (Yasmine) contractually agreed to construct a wall for a customer (Jack) 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 (Matthew) makes a valid CPR Part 36 settlement offer to the defendant (Philip) of £75,000. The defendant rejects the offer. The case goes to trial, and the claimant wins, obtaining judgment of £86,250. 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. Matthew's Offer: £75,000 - a valid Part 36 offer. 2. Philip's Decision: Rejected the offer and proceeded to trial. 3. Trial Outcome: Matthew wins £86,250 - which *exceeds* the Part 36
A claimant (Helen) makes a valid CPR Part 36 settlement offer to the defendant (James) of £500,000. The defendant rejects the offer. The case goes to trial, and the claimant wins, obtaining judgment of £575,000. 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. Helen's Offer: £500,000 - a valid Part 36 offer. 2. James's Decision: Rejected the offer and proceeded to trial. 3. Trial Outcome: Helen wins £575,000 - which *exceeds* the Part 36 off
Caleb offered to sell a delivery van to Evelyn for £500. Evelyn replied: 'I accept your offer, but I will pay £450.' Caleb did not respond. Two days later, Evelyn wrote to Caleb saying: 'I accept your original offer of £500.' Is there a binding contract between Caleb and Evelyn?
- A.Yes, because the second letter constituted a valid acceptance of the original offer.
- B.Yes, because the original offer remained open and had not been revoked by the offeror.
- C.No, because the counter-offer of the lower price killed the original offer, meaning it could no longer be accepted.
- D.No, because a contract for sale of goods must be made in writing signed by both parties.
- E.Yes, because the offeror's silence on the counter-offer constituted acceptance of the lower price.
✓ Worked Explanation
Core Concept: Counter-Offer and the Death of the Original Offer A counter-offer is a rejection of the original offer combined with a new offer on different terms. Once a counter-offer is made, the original offer is extinguished - it cannot be revived or accepted later. Step-by-Step Resolution: 1. Original Offer: Caleb offers the delivery van for £500. 2. Counter-Offer: Evelyn replies with £450 - this is a counter-offer, NOT an acceptance. Under Hyde v Wrench (1840), this kills the original offe
An employee of Zephyr Services LLP negligently injures a customer (Victoria) while driving a company delivery van to make a scheduled delivery. The customer sues Zephyr Services 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 Zephyr Services LLP (not an independent contractor). 2. Course of Employment Test: Was the tort committed while perfo
A director of Vanguard Industries plc (a private company limited by shares) wants to allot new shares to a new investor (Wendy) to raise capital of £35,000. The company has only one class of ordinary shares. Under the Companies Act 2006, which of the following is correct regarding the director's authority to allot these shares?
- A.The director has automatic statutory authority to allot the shares without shareholder approval under Section 550, unless restricted by the articles.
- B.The director must always obtain authorization by ordinary resolution of the shareholders under Section 551.
- C.The director must obtain authorization by special resolution of the shareholders to allot any shares.
- D.The director requires the approval of the Board of Trade before alloting any class of shares.
- E.Authority is only required if the allotment would cause the company to exceed its authorised share capital as stated in the memorandum.
✓ Worked Explanation
Core Concept: Director's Authority to Allot Shares (Section 550 CA 2006) The Companies Act 2006 grants directors of private companies with a single class of shares a specific statutory power to allot shares of that class without requiring shareholder approval - unless the articles restrict this. Step-by-Step Resolution: 1. Identify Company Type: Vanguard Industries plc is a *private* company limited by shares with *one* class of ordinary shares. 2. Apply Section 550: Directors of such a company
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
- 129 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