Free SQE Mock Test 229 — 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 229
applaa-sqe-mock-229.pdf · 20 questions
Applaa proprietary content · Free to download and print · No sign-up required
Save PDFSample Questions — SQE Mock 229
8 of 20 shownCorrect answers highlighted in green. Full explanations included.
A driver (Alice) crashes into a pedestrian (Charlotte) 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 ('Alice') causing physical injury to a pedestrian (Charlotte) through a positive act clearly falls within
Prior to the formal incorporation of Vanguard Industries plc, a promoter (Mila) 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 Mila 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: Vanguard Industries plc had no legal existence when Mila signed the contract. There was no legal entity to be bound. 2. Apply Section 51: The contract takes
A seller (Zachary) negligently makes a false statement of fact regarding the turnover of a business to a buyer (Frank), inducing them to buy it. The buyer subsequently discovers the fraud. Which of the following describes the remedies available under the Misrepresentation Act 1967?
- A.The contract is automatically void, and the seller must be prosecuted criminally.
- B.Rescission of the contract and/or damages under Section 2(1) of the Act.
- C.The buyer can only recover damages and has no right to rescind the contract under any circumstances.
- D.The contract is binding, and no remedy is available since the buyer should have checked the accounts (caveat emptor).
- E.The seller is required to perform specific performance of the turnover projection.
✓ Worked Explanation
Core Concept: Misrepresentation Act 1967 - Remedies The Misrepresentation Act 1967 classifies misrepresentation into three types (fraudulent, negligent, innocent) and provides different remedies for each. A negligent misrepresentation under Section 2(1) is the most commonly tested in SQE. Step-by-Step Resolution: 1. Identify the Type: A *negligent* false statement of fact made by Zachary to induce Frank to buy. 2. Remedy Under Section 2(1): The innocent party (Frank) may: - Rescind the contr
An employee of Zephyr Services LLP negligently injures a customer (Charlie) 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 builder (Ian) contractually agreed to construct a wall for a customer (Victoria) 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 driver (Charlotte) crashes into a pedestrian (Beatrice) 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 ('Charlotte') causing physical injury to a pedestrian (Beatrice) through a positive act clearly falls wit
A shopkeeper (Yasmine) places a vintage watch in the shop window with a price tag of £55,000. A customer (Nora) 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
An employee of Nova Capital Ltd negligently injures a customer (Zoe) while driving a company delivery van to make a scheduled delivery. The customer sues Nova Capital Ltd. 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 Nova Capital Ltd (not an independent contractor). 2. Course of Employment Test: Was the tort committed while performi
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
- 229 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