Free SQE Mock Test 203 — 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 203
applaa-sqe-mock-203.pdf · 20 questions
Applaa proprietary content · Free to download and print · No sign-up required
Save PDFSample Questions — SQE Mock 203
8 of 20 shownCorrect answers highlighted in green. Full explanations included.
A driver (Rose) crashes into a pedestrian (Helen) who is crossing the street, causing physical injuries. To establish negligence, the claimant must show that the defendant owed them a duty of care. How does the court establish if a duty of care exists for physical damage caused by positive actions?
- A.By applying the three-stage Caparo test including fair, just, and reasonable criteria in every case.
- B.By finding that the case falls within an established duty category (such as road users to other road users) where a duty is automatically owed (Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire).
- C.By checking if the defendant signed a voluntary duty registration form.
- D.By proving the defendant intended to cause physical harm.
- E.By allocating the claim to the Fast Track under CPR guidelines.
✓ Worked Explanation
Core Concept: Duty of Care - Established Categories (Robinson v Chief Constable) Not every case requires a full Caparo analysis. The Supreme Court in Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] confirmed that where a case falls into an *established duty category*, the duty is owed as a matter of precedent. Step-by-Step Resolution: 1. Is this an Established Category?: A driver ('Rose') causing physical injury to a pedestrian (Helen) through a positive act clearly falls within an e
A builder (Victor) contractually agreed to construct a wall for a customer (Zoe) 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 Epsilon Foods plc (a private company limited by shares) wants to allot new shares to a new investor (Philip) to raise capital of £500,000. 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: Epsilon Foods plc is a *private* company limited by shares with *one* class of ordinary shares. 2. Apply Section 550: Directors of such a company have
A claimant (Lucas) makes a valid CPR Part 36 settlement offer to the defendant (Amelia) of £12,000. The defendant rejects the offer. The case goes to trial, and the claimant wins, obtaining judgment of £13,799. 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. Lucas's Offer: £12,000 - a valid Part 36 offer. 2. Amelia's Decision: Rejected the offer and proceeded to trial. 3. Trial Outcome: Lucas wins £13,799 - which *exceeds* the Part 36 offe
A claimant (James) has brought an action against a defendant (Matthew) in the County Court for breach of contract, claiming £35,000 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 £35,000. 2. Apply the Track Thresholds: - Small Claims Track: £10,000 (for most claims; £1,000 for personal injury/housing disrepair) - Fast Track: > £10,
A claimant (Sophia) makes a valid CPR Part 36 settlement offer to the defendant (Katelyn) of £5,000. The defendant rejects the offer. The case goes to trial, and the claimant wins, obtaining judgment of £5,750. 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. Sophia's Offer: £5,000 - a valid Part 36 offer. 2. Katelyn's Decision: Rejected the offer and proceeded to trial. 3. Trial Outcome: Sophia wins £5,750 - which *exceeds* the Part 36 off
Prior to the formal incorporation of Atlas Transport Ltd, a promoter (Katelyn) signed a contract 'on behalf of the company' to purchase machinery from a supplier. The company is now incorporated. Which of the following best describes the liability of Katelyn and the company on this pre-incorporation contract?
- A.The company is automatically bound by the contract upon incorporation, and the promoter is released.
- B.The contract is completely void and unenforceable by any party.
- C.The promoter is personally liable and entitled under the contract, subject to any agreement to the contrary, under Section 51 of the Companies Act 2006.
- D.The company and the promoter are jointly and severally liable automatically.
- E.The company can unilaterally ratify the contract without the supplier's agreement.
✓ Worked Explanation
Core Concept: Pre-Incorporation Contracts (Section 51 CA 2006) A company cannot be a party to a contract before it legally exists. When a promoter signs a contract 'on behalf of' an unformed company, Section 51 CA 2006 provides the default rule: the promoter is personally bound. Step-by-Step Resolution: 1. Legal Status Before Incorporation: Atlas Transport Ltd had no legal existence when Katelyn signed the contract. There was no legal entity to be bound. 2. Apply Section 51: The contract takes
A shopkeeper (Alice) places a vintage watch in the shop window with a price tag of £55,000. A customer (Kevin) enters the shop, places the cash on the counter, and demands to buy the item. The shopkeeper refuses to sell it. Is there a binding contract?
- A.Yes, because placing the item in the window was a unilateral offer that was accepted by the customer's cash payment.
- B.No, because the display of goods in a shop window is an invitation to treat, not an offer. Refusing to sell does not breach any contract (Fisher v Bell).
- C.Yes, because consumer protection laws force retailers to sell all displayed items automatically.
- D.No, because contracts for sales in shops require a written signed document.
- E.Yes, because the shopkeeper was silent when the customer entered, constituting acceptance.
✓ Worked Explanation
Core Concept: Invitation to Treat vs. Offer A binding contract requires a valid *offer* and *acceptance*. The display of goods in a shop window or on a shelf is an invitation to treat - an invitation for customers to make offers. It is fundamentally different from a legal offer, which can be accepted to form a contract. Step-by-Step Resolution: 1. What is an Invitation to Treat?: A display of goods with a price tag is not an offer - it is merely an expression of willingness to deal on those ter
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
- 203 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