Free SQE Mock Test 25 — 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 25
applaa-sqe-mock-25.pdf · 20 questions
Applaa proprietary content · Free to download and print · No sign-up required
Save PDFSample Questions — SQE Mock 25
8 of 20 shownCorrect answers highlighted in green. Full explanations included.
A driver (Edward) crashes into a pedestrian (Evelyn) 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 ('Edward') causing physical injury to a pedestrian (Evelyn) through a positive act clearly falls within a
A claimant (Helen) has brought an action against a defendant (Ian) in the County Court for breach of contract, claiming £500,000 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 £500,000. 2. Apply the Track Thresholds: - Small Claims Track: £10,000 (for most claims; £1,000 for personal injury/housing disrepair) - Fast Track: > £10
A director of Summit Logistics Ltd (a private company limited by shares) wants to allot new shares to a new investor (Fiona) to raise capital of £220,000. 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: Summit Logistics Ltd is a *private* company limited by shares with *one* class of ordinary shares. 2. Apply Section 550: Directors of such a company ha
A claimant was injured when a defendant (Helen), 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: Helen 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 194
A claimant (Ryan) has applied for summary judgment against a defendant (Victor) 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
A claimant was injured when a defendant (George), who was engaged in delivering expired pharmaceuticals, 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: George 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 driver (Daniel) crashes into a pedestrian (Olivia) 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 ('Daniel') causing physical injury to a pedestrian (Olivia) through a positive act clearly falls within a
A customer (Helen) 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
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
- 25 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