Free SQE Mock Test 81 — 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 81
applaa-sqe-mock-81.pdf · 20 questions
Applaa proprietary content · Free to download and print · No sign-up required
Save PDFSample Questions — SQE Mock 81
8 of 20 shownCorrect answers highlighted in green. Full explanations included.
A claimant (Fiona) makes a valid CPR Part 36 settlement offer to the defendant (Beatrice) of £15,000. The defendant rejects the offer. The case goes to trial, and the claimant wins, obtaining judgment of £17,250. 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. Fiona's Offer: £15,000 - a valid Part 36 offer. 2. Beatrice's Decision: Rejected the offer and proceeded to trial. 3. Trial Outcome: Fiona wins £17,250 - which *exceeds* the Part 36 of
A seller (Mila) negligently makes a false statement of fact regarding the turnover of a business to a buyer (Oliver), 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 Mila to induce Oliver to buy. 2. Remedy Under Section 2(1): The innocent party (Oliver) may: - Rescind the contra
A claimant (Philip) makes a valid CPR Part 36 settlement offer to the defendant (Victoria) of £12,000. The defendant rejects the offer. The case goes to trial, and the claimant wins, obtaining judgment of £13,799. 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. Philip's Offer: £12,000 - a valid Part 36 offer. 2. Victoria's Decision: Rejected the offer and proceeded to trial. 3. Trial Outcome: Philip wins £13,799 - which *exceeds* the Part 36
A shopkeeper (Yasmine) places a laptop in the shop window with a price tag of £220,000. A customer (Isabella) 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
A customer (Evelyn) 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
A customer (Yasmine) 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
An employee of Nova Capital Ltd negligently injures a customer (Oliver) 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
A builder (Kate) contractually agreed to construct a wall for a customer (Nora) 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
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
- 81 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