Free SQE Mock Test 32 — 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 32
applaa-sqe-mock-32.pdf · 20 questions
Applaa proprietary content · Free to download and print · No sign-up required
Save PDFSample Questions — SQE Mock 32
8 of 20 shownCorrect answers highlighted in green. Full explanations included.
A driver (Daniel) crashes into a pedestrian (Rose) 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 (Rose) through a positive act clearly falls within an
A claimant was injured when a defendant (Yasmine), who was engaged in speeding in a residential zone, 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: Yasmine 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 1
A seller (Victor) negligently makes a false statement of fact regarding the turnover of a business to a buyer (Helen), 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 Victor to induce Helen to buy. 2. Remedy Under Section 2(1): The innocent party (Helen) may: - Rescind the contra
A claimant (Georgia) has applied for summary judgment against a defendant (Lucas) 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
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 £18,500 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 builder (Noah) contractually agreed to construct a wall for a customer (Kate) 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 (Arthur) makes a valid CPR Part 36 settlement offer to the defendant (Mila) of £180,000. The defendant rejects the offer. The case goes to trial, and the claimant wins, obtaining judgment of £206,999. 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. Arthur's Offer: £180,000 - a valid Part 36 offer. 2. Mila's Decision: Rejected the offer and proceeded to trial. 3. Trial Outcome: Arthur wins £206,999 - which *exceeds* the Part 36 of
A customer (Ian) 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
- 32 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