Free SQE Mock Test 23 — 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 23
applaa-sqe-mock-23.pdf · 20 questions
Applaa proprietary content · Free to download and print · No sign-up required
Save PDFSample Questions — SQE Mock 23
8 of 20 shownCorrect answers highlighted in green. Full explanations included.
A seller (Lucas) negligently makes a false statement of fact regarding the turnover of a business to a buyer (Fredrick), 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 Lucas to induce Fredrick to buy. 2. Remedy Under Section 2(1): The innocent party (Fredrick) may: - Rescind the c
An employee of Crown Estates Ltd negligently injures a customer (Nathan) while driving a company delivery van to make a scheduled delivery. The customer sues Crown Estates 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 Crown Estates Ltd (not an independent contractor). 2. Course of Employment Test: Was the tort committed while perform
A claimant was injured when a defendant (Nathan), who was engaged in leaving loose debris on a construction site, caused an accident. The defendant admits they owed the claimant a duty of care and breached it, but argues that the claimant's own negligence contributed to the injury. Under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, what is the legal effect of contributory negligence?
- A.It acts as a complete defense, and the claimant receives no damages.
- B.It reduces the claimant's damages to the extent that is just and equitable, reflecting the claimant's share of responsibility.
- C.It has no effect on damages but requires the claimant to pay the defendant's legal costs.
- D.It shifts the burden of proof to the claimant to show that they took all reasonable precautions.
- E.It renders the claim null and void, requiring allocation to criminal arbitration.
✓ Worked Explanation
Core Concept: Contributory Negligence (Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945) Contributory negligence is a partial defence - it does not defeat the claim entirely, but reduces the damages awarded to reflect the claimant's own responsibility for their injury. Step-by-Step Resolution: 1. Identify the Defence: Nathan admits negligence but argues the claimant also contributed to their own injury (e.g., not wearing a seatbelt, failing to follow safety instructions). 2. Legal Effect (LRCNA 19
A claimant (Olivia) makes a valid CPR Part 36 settlement offer to the defendant (Zoe) 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. Olivia's Offer: £18,500 - a valid Part 36 offer. 2. Zoe's Decision: Rejected the offer and proceeded to trial. 3. Trial Outcome: Olivia wins £21,275 - which *exceeds* the Part 36 offer
An environmental pressure group wishes to bring a judicial review application to challenge a government department's decision to construct a new airport runway. Under Section 31(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, what must the applicant show to be granted permission to bring the claim?
- A.They must have a direct financial interest in the outcome of the challenge.
- B.They must show they have 'sufficient interest' in the matter to which the application relates (standing).
- C.They must obtain a majority vote of the local residents in favor of the suit.
- D.They must have been directly physically injured by the government's action.
- E.They must deposit £15,000 as security for costs.
✓ Worked Explanation
Core Concept: Standing for Judicial Review (Section 31 Senior Courts Act 1981) Judicial review allows the courts to scrutinise the legality of public authority decisions. To bring a claim, the applicant must have *standing* - they must demonstrate 'sufficient interest' in the matter. Step-by-Step Resolution: 1. The 'Sufficient Interest' Test: Under Section 31(3) SCA 1981, the applicant must have sufficient interest in the matter. This is deliberately flexible and broad. 2. Public Interest Stand
A driver (Penelope) crashes into a pedestrian (Emma) 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 ('Penelope') causing physical injury to a pedestrian (Emma) through a positive act clearly falls within a
Prior to the formal incorporation of Zenith Retail Ltd, a promoter (Liam) 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 Liam 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: Zenith Retail Ltd had no legal existence when Liam signed the contract. There was no legal entity to be bound. 2. Apply Section 51: The contract takes effec
An employee of Summit Logistics Ltd negligently injures a customer (Nathan) while driving a company delivery van to make a scheduled delivery. The customer sues Summit Logistics 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 Summit Logistics Ltd (not an independent contractor). 2. Course of Employment Test: Was the tort committed while perf
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
- 23 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