Free SQE Mock Test 47 — 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 47
applaa-sqe-mock-47.pdf · 20 questions
Applaa proprietary content · Free to download and print · No sign-up required
Save PDFSample Questions — SQE Mock 47
8 of 20 shownCorrect answers highlighted in green. Full explanations included.
A driver (Emma) crashes into a pedestrian (Wendy) 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 ('Emma') causing physical injury to a pedestrian (Wendy) through a positive act clearly falls within an e
A claimant (Zoe) has brought an action against a defendant (Katelyn) in the County Court for breach of contract, claiming £9,500 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 £9,500. 2. Apply the Track Thresholds: - Small Claims Track: £10,000 (for most claims; £1,000 for personal injury/housing disrepair) - Fast Track: > £10,0
A builder (Kevin) contractually agreed to construct a wall for a customer (Evelyn) 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 was injured when a defendant (George), who was engaged in spilling oil on a public road, 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 claimant was injured when a defendant (Oliver), 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: Oliver 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
Katelyn offered to sell a yacht to George for £5,000. George replied: 'I accept your offer, but I will pay £4,500.' Katelyn did not respond. Two days later, George wrote to Katelyn saying: 'I accept your original offer of £5,000.' Is there a binding contract between Katelyn and George?
- A.Yes, because the second letter constituted a valid acceptance of the original offer.
- B.Yes, because the original offer remained open and had not been revoked by the offeror.
- C.No, because the counter-offer of the lower price killed the original offer, meaning it could no longer be accepted.
- D.No, because a contract for sale of goods must be made in writing signed by both parties.
- E.Yes, because the offeror's silence on the counter-offer constituted acceptance of the lower price.
✓ Worked Explanation
Core Concept: Counter-Offer and the Death of the Original Offer A counter-offer is a rejection of the original offer combined with a new offer on different terms. Once a counter-offer is made, the original offer is extinguished - it cannot be revived or accepted later. Step-by-Step Resolution: 1. Original Offer: Katelyn offers the yacht for £5,000. 2. Counter-Offer: George replies with £4,500 - this is a counter-offer, NOT an acceptance. Under Hyde v Wrench (1840), this kills the original offer
An employee of Alpha Trading Ltd negligently injures a customer (Quinn) while driving a company delivery van to make a scheduled delivery. The customer sues Alpha Trading 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 Alpha Trading Ltd (not an independent contractor). 2. Course of Employment Test: Was the tort committed while perform
An employee of Genesis Consulting Ltd negligently injures a customer (Zoe) while driving a company delivery van to make a scheduled delivery. The customer sues Genesis Consulting 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 Genesis Consulting Ltd (not an independent contractor). 2. Course of Employment Test: Was the tort committed while pe
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
- 47 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