PrepSuite.co.uk
SQE1 Practice Questions – Set 2 (More FLK1 & FLK2 Questions)
Topic (FLK1): Business Law & Practice
Q1. A promoter enters into a contract on behalf of a proposed company for the lease of commercial premises. The contract is signed “for and on behalf of XYZ Ltd (to be incorporated)”. After incorporation, the company occupies the premises and pays rent for three months, but no new agreement is made with the landlord.
The company then ceases trading, and the landlord seeks to recover unpaid rent from the promoter.
Which statement best describes the legal position?
A. The company is liable because it adopted the contract by performance
B. The promoter remains personally liable under the contract
C. Liability transfers automatically upon incorporation
D. The contract is unenforceable because the company did not exist at the time
E. The directors are liable once the company begins trading
Additional SQE1 Practice Questions (Set 2)
Correct Answer: B Explanation: A company cannot be bound by a contract made before it comes into existence. Under section 51 of the Companies Act 2006, a person who purports to act on behalf of a company before it is incorporated is personally liable on that contract. In this scenario, the promoter entered into the lease before the company was incorporated. Although the company later: - Occupied the premises - Paid rent this does not amount to the company becoming bound by the original contract. A company cannot “adopt” or ratify a pre-incorporation contract. The only way to transfer liability is through novation, which requires: - Agreement of all parties - A new contract substituting the company As no novation occurred, the promoter remains personally liable for the obligations under the lease. (This is a common issue in SQE1 Business Law questions, particularly involving pre-incorporation contracts and mistaken assumptions about adoption by conduct.) Why the other options are wrong: A. The company is liable because it adopted the contract by performance Incorrect. A company cannot adopt a pre-incorporation contract by conduct. A novation is required. C. Liability transfers automatically upon incorporation Incorrect. Incorporation does not transfer liability for pre-incorporation contracts. D. The contract is unenforceable because the company did not exist at the time Incorrect. The contract is enforceable against the promoter who entered into it. E. The directors are liable once the company begins trading Incorrect. Liability rests with the individual who entered into the contract, not automatically with directors. Exam Tip: For SQE1 Business Law questions, remember: - Pre-incorporation contracts → personal liability (s.51 CA 2006) - A company cannot adopt or ratify such contracts - Only novation can transfer liability A common trap is assuming that performance by the company transfers liability — it does not. Question Difficulty: Medium–High
Topic (FLK1): Dispute Resolution
Q2. A claimant brings a claim in the County Court for £22,000 arising from a construction dispute. The case involves conflicting expert reports and complex issues of causation. The trial is estimated to last two days.
The matter is initially considered by a District Judge, who is asked to determine allocation. The claimant argues that the claim should be allocated to the fast track due to its value. The defendant contends that the case is unsuitable for the fast track.
Which of the following best describes the correct legal position regarding allocation?
A. The claim must be allocated to the fast track because it falls within the financial limits
B. The claim must be allocated to the multi-track because the trial exceeds one day
C. The court has discretion to allocate the claim based on value and complexity
D. The District Judge must follow the claimant’s preferred track
E. The claim must be allocated to the small claims track as it is under £25,000
Correct Answer: C Explanation: Under CPR Part 26, the court determines track allocation by considering both the financial value of the claim and the overall complexity and case management requirements. Although claims between £10,000 and £25,000 are generally suitable for the fast track, this is only appropriate where: - The trial is likely to last no more than one day - Expert evidence is limited - The issues are relatively straightforward In this scenario: - The claim is within the fast track financial range (£22,000) - However, the trial is expected to last two days - There is conflicting expert evidence and complex causation issues These factors indicate that the case may be unsuitable for fast track allocation. The court therefore retains discretion to allocate the claim to the multi-track, despite its value, based on the overall circumstances. (This is a common issue in SQE1 Dispute Resolution questions, where candidates must weigh financial thresholds against practical suitability.) Why the other options are wrong: A. The claim must be allocated to the fast track because it falls within the financial limits Incorrect. Value alone does not determine allocation. Trial length and complexity are key considerations. B. The claim must be allocated to the multi-track because the trial exceeds one day Incorrect. While this strongly points toward multi-track, allocation is not automatic. The court retains discretion. D. The District Judge must follow the claimant’s preferred track Incorrect. Allocation is determined by the court, not by the parties. E. The claim must be allocated to the small claims track as it is under £25,000 Incorrect. The small claims track generally applies to claims under £10,000. Exam Tip: For SQE1 Civil Litigation questions, remember: - Track allocation depends on value + complexity + trial length - Fast track requires ≤1 day trial and limited complexity - Multi-track applies where cases are longer or more complex A common trap is treating financial limits as decisive — in practice, case management factors often override value. Question Difficulty: Medium–High
Topic (FLK1): Contract Law
Q3. A consumer purchases a smart television for £900. After two months of normal use, the television begins to switch off intermittently due to a software fault affecting its operating system.
The consumer contacts the retailer and requests a full refund. The retailer offers to repair the fault by installing a software update within a reasonable time.
Which statement best describes the consumer’s legal position under the Consumer Rights Act 2015?
A. The consumer is entitled to an immediate full refund
B. The consumer must accept repair or replacement before seeking a refund
C. The consumer has no remedy because the fault is software-related
D. The consumer may reject the goods at any time within six months
E. The consumer must prove the retailer was at fault at the time of sale
Correct Answer: B Explanation: Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, goods must be of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose, and as described. A fault developing after purchase—such as a software defect affecting functionality—breaches these requirements. However, the consumer’s remedies depend on timing: - Within the first 30 days → short-term right to reject (full refund) - After 30 days → the consumer must first allow the retailer an opportunity to repair or replace In this scenario: - The fault arises after two months - Therefore, the short-term right to reject has expired The consumer must initially accept a repair or replacement, provided it is carried out: - Within a reasonable time - Without significant inconvenience Only if repair or replacement: - Fails, or - Is not provided properly can the consumer move to a final right to reject or request a price reduction. (This is a common SQE1 issue testing the sequence of remedies under the CRA 2015.) Why the other options are wrong: A. The consumer is entitled to an immediate full refund Incorrect. The short-term right to reject applies only within 30 days. C. The consumer has no remedy because the fault is software-related Incorrect. Software forming part of goods can render them unsatisfactory under the CRA 2015. D. The consumer may reject the goods at any time within six months Incorrect. After 30 days, rejection is conditional on failed repair or replacement. E. The consumer must prove the retailer was at fault at the time of sale Incorrect. Within six months, faults are presumed to have been present at delivery unless the retailer proves otherwise. Exam Tip: For SQE1 Consumer Law questions, remember the remedy sequence: - First 30 days → Reject - After 30 days → Repair or replace first - If that fails → Final right to reject or price reduction A common trap is assuming a refund is always available — in most cases, it is not the first remedy after 30 days. Question Difficulty: Medium–High
Topic (FLK1): Tort
Q4. A shopper enters a supermarket during opening hours. A section of the floor has recently been mopped, leaving it wet and slippery. A warning sign is placed nearby but partially obscured by a display stand.
The shopper does not see the sign, slips, and suffers a serious wrist fracture. The supermarket argues that it discharged its duty by placing a warning notice.
Which of the following best describes the legal position?
A. The supermarket owes no duty once a warning sign is displayed
B. The shopper cannot recover because they failed to notice the sign
C. The supermarket may still be liable if the warning was insufficient
D. Liability is excluded because the risk was obvious
E. The shopper must prove intentional wrongdoing to recover damages
Correct Answer: C Explanation: Under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, occupiers owe a duty to take reasonable care to ensure that visitors are reasonably safe when using the premises. A warning may discharge this duty, but only if: - It is adequate, and - It enables the visitor to be reasonably safe In this scenario: - A warning sign was present - However, it was partially obscured and not clearly visible As a result, the warning may be considered insufficient, meaning the occupier has not discharged their duty. The supermarket may therefore still be liable in negligence, as reasonable steps were not taken to ensure the hazard was properly communicated. This reflects principles from cases such as Roles v Nathan and Staples v West Dorset DC, where the adequacy of warnings is key. Why the other options are wrong: A. The supermarket owes no duty once a warning sign is displayed Incorrect. A warning only discharges the duty if it is sufficient to make the visitor safe. B. The shopper cannot recover because they failed to notice the sign Incorrect. If the warning was not reasonably visible, the occupier may still be liable. D. Liability is excluded because the risk was obvious Incorrect. Even obvious risks may still require adequate warning or preventative measures. E. The shopper must prove intentional wrongdoing to recover damages Incorrect. Negligence, not intention, is the relevant standard. Exam Tip: For SQE1 Tort questions, remember: - Occupiers must take reasonable care for visitor safety - Warnings only work if they are clear and effective - Poorly placed or hidden warnings do not discharge liability A common trap is assuming that any warning = no liability — this is incorrect. Question Difficulty: Medium
Topic (FLK1): Legal System of England & Wales
Q5. A claimant loses a case in the County Court following a trial before a District Judge. The claimant wishes to appeal, arguing that the judge reached the wrong conclusion on the facts.
The claimant files an appellant’s notice but has not yet obtained permission to appeal.
Which of the following best describes the legal position?
A. The claimant has an automatic right to appeal
B. The claimant must obtain permission to appeal unless an exception applies
C. Appeals from the County Court are only permitted on points of law
D. Permission to appeal is not required where the claim exceeds £10,000
E. The appeal will proceed automatically once the notice is filed
Correct Answer: B Explanation: Under CPR Part 52, a party seeking to appeal must generally obtain permission to appeal, unless the appeal falls within a limited category where permission is not required. Permission may be granted where: - The appeal would have a real prospect of success, or - There is some other compelling reason for the appeal to be heard In this scenario: - The claimant is appealing a County Court decision - No indication is given that the case falls within an exception Therefore, the claimant must obtain permission to appeal, either: - From the original trial judge, or - From the appeal court Simply filing an appellant’s notice does not allow the appeal to proceed automatically. (This is a common SQE1 issue testing procedural requirements rather than court hierarchy.) Why the other options are wrong: A. The claimant has an automatic right to appeal Incorrect. Most appeals require permission. C. Appeals from the County Court are only permitted on points of law Incorrect. Appeals may involve findings of fact, but appellate courts are generally reluctant to interfere with factual findings. D. Permission to appeal is not required where the claim exceeds £10,000 Incorrect. Financial value does not remove the requirement for permission. E. The appeal will proceed automatically once the notice is filed Incorrect. Filing a notice is only one step; permission is still required. Exam Tip: For SQE1 Legal System questions, remember: - Appeals usually require permission to appeal (CPR Part 52) - Test = real prospect of success OR compelling reason - Filing an appeal ≠ right to be heard A common trap is assuming appeals are automatic — they are not. Question Difficulty: Medium
Topic (FLK1): Constitutional & Administrative Law / EU
Q6. An Act of Parliament grants a minister power to “amend or repeal provisions of primary legislation where necessary to give effect to this Act.” Relying on this power, the minister introduces regulations creating criminal offences punishable by imprisonment for breaches of administrative requirements by businesses.
A company prosecuted under the regulations seeks judicial review, arguing that the minister acted beyond the scope of the enabling Act.
Which of the following best explains the likely outcome?
A. The regulations are ultra vires because clear words are required to create criminal offences
B. The regulations are valid because Henry VIII clauses permit amendment of primary legislation
C. The regulations are valid because Parliament intended broad ministerial discretion
D. The claim will fail because delegated legislation cannot be challenged once enacted
E. The regulations are valid provided they are proportionate
Correct Answer: A Explanation: Although Henry VIII clauses permit ministers to amend or repeal primary legislation, they are interpreted strictly by the courts due to their constitutional significance. The creation of criminal offences, particularly those carrying imprisonment, requires clear and express statutory authorisation. General or broadly worded powers—such as those allowing amendment “where necessary”—are unlikely to be sufficient. In this scenario: - The enabling Act does not clearly authorise the creation of criminal offences - The minister has used a broad power to introduce significant penal consequences This is likely to be considered ultra vires, as it exceeds the intended scope of the delegated power. This reflects the principle that fundamental rights and serious legal consequences cannot be overridden by general or ambiguous wording (e.g. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Simms). Why the other options are wrong: B. The regulations are valid because Henry VIII clauses permit amendment of primary legislation Incorrect. Such clauses are narrowly construed and do not automatically authorise all forms of legal change, especially criminal liability. C. The regulations are valid because Parliament intended broad ministerial discretion Incorrect. Courts require clear wording for significant powers; broad discretion is not enough. D. The claim will fail because delegated legislation cannot be challenged once enacted Incorrect. Delegated legislation can be challenged by judicial review. E. The regulations are valid provided they are proportionate Incorrect. The primary issue is vires, not proportionality. Exam Tip: For SQE1 Public Law questions, remember: - Henry VIII clauses are strictly interpreted - Creation of criminal offences requires clear statutory authority - General wording ≠ permission for significant legal consequences A common trap is assuming that “broad power” means “unlimited power” — it does not. Question Difficulty: Hard
Topic (FLK1): Legal Services
Q7. A junior solicitor working on a litigation matter discovers, shortly before trial, that a senior partner has intentionally failed to disclose a document that is directly adverse to the client’s case. The partner instructs the junior to “leave it” and proceed as planned.
The junior is concerned that disclosure at this stage may damage the client’s position and expose the firm to criticism.
Which of the following best describes the junior solicitor’s professional obligations?
A. The junior must prioritise the client’s interests and follow the partner’s instructions
B. The junior must take steps to ensure the court is not misled, even if this conflicts with the client’s interests
C. The junior may remain silent provided they did not personally make the disclosure decision
D. The junior should only act if the client consents to disclosure
E. The junior’s duty is limited to reporting the issue after the trial has concluded
Correct Answer: B Explanation: Under the SRA Principles, solicitors must: - Act with integrity - Uphold the rule of law and the proper administration of justice These duties take priority over: - The client’s interests - Instructions from colleagues or supervisors In this scenario: - A material document has been deliberately withheld - Proceeding to trial without disclosure would mislead the court The junior solicitor cannot: - Rely on the partner’s instructions - Remain passive They must take active steps to address the issue, which may include: - Raising the matter internally Insisting on proper disclosure - Refusing to act if the issue is not remedied - If necessary, further steps may be required to avoid being complicit in misleading the court. This is a classic SQE1 issue testing the primacy of duties to the court over client and employer interests. Why the other options are wrong: A. The junior must prioritise the client’s interests and follow the partner’s instructions Incorrect. Duties to the court override both client interests and internal hierarchy. C. The junior may remain silent provided they did not personally make the disclosure decision Incorrect. A solicitor must not be complicit in misleading the court, regardless of who made the decision. D. The junior should only act if the client consents to disclosure Incorrect. Disclosure obligations are not dependent on client consent where the court would otherwise be misled. E. The junior’s duty is limited to reporting the issue after the trial has concluded Incorrect. The duty is immediate. Allowing the trial to proceed would breach professional obligations. Exam Tip: For SQE1 Legal Services questions, remember: - Duty to the court > duty to client > duty to employer - You must not mislead the court or be complicit in doing so - Instructions from senior colleagues do not override professional obligations A common trap is thinking hierarchy or client interest can justify inaction — it cannot. Question Difficulty: Hard
Topic (FLK2): Property Law & Practice
Q8. In 2010, Alex purchased a registered freehold house in their sole name. At the time of purchase, both Alex and Blake contributed equally towards the deposit.
After moving in, Blake paid most of the monthly mortgage instalments for over ten years. Blake also funded a kitchen extension and other significant improvements to the property. Alex, meanwhile, paid household outgoings such as council tax, insurance, and utilities.
The relationship ended in 2023. Alex now claims that, as sole legal owner, they are entitled to the entire property. Blake argues that they have a beneficial interest.
There is no written agreement between the parties regarding ownership.
Which of the following is the most appropriate legal basis for determining Blake’s interest (if any)?
A. A resulting trust based solely on the initial deposit contributions
B. A constructive trust based on the parties’ shared intention inferred from their conduct
C. Proprietary estoppel giving Blake an automatic equal share
D. The principle that legal ownership determines the entire beneficial interest
E. Overreaching of Blake’s interest into the proceeds of sale
Correct Answer: B Explanation: In cases involving domestic property held in a single legal name, the court will generally apply a common intention constructive trust to determine beneficial ownership. Authorities such as Stack v Dowden and Jones v Kernott establish that the court looks at the whole course of conduct between the parties to determine: - Whether there was a shared intention that both would have a beneficial interest - What the parties’ respective shares should be Where there is no express declaration of trust, the court may: - Infer intention from conduct (e.g. financial contributions, arrangements) - Impute intention where necessary to achieve a fair outcome In this scenario: - Blake contributed significantly to the mortgage repayments - Blake funded substantial renovations, increasing the property’s value - The arrangement suggests a shared understanding of ownership, despite legal title being in Alex’s name Although Alex covered household expenses, Blake’s contributions are more directly linked to the acquisition and enhancement of the property. As a result, the court is likely to find a constructive trust, with beneficial shares determined based on the parties’ conduct and inferred or imputed intentions. (This is a common issue in SQE1 Property Law questions, particularly involving cohabitation, sole legal ownership, and beneficial interest disputes.) Why the other options are wrong: A. A resulting trust based solely on the initial deposit contributions Incorrect. Resulting trusts are less favoured in domestic settings. The court prefers a constructive trust based on the parties’ overall conduct, not just their initial financial contributions. C. Proprietary estoppel giving Blake an automatic equal share Incorrect. Proprietary estoppel may arise in some cases, but it does not automatically apply or guarantee equal shares. The facts here more clearly support a constructive trust analysis. D. The principle that legal ownership determines the entire beneficial interest Incorrect. Equity does not simply follow legal title where there is evidence that the parties intended a shared beneficial interest. E. Overreaching of Blake’s interest into the proceeds of sale Incorrect. Overreaching applies where property is sold and beneficial interests are transferred from the land to the sale proceeds. It is not relevant to determining whether Blake has a beneficial interest in the first place. Exam Tip: For SQE1 Property Law questions, remember: - In domestic contexts, courts prefer constructive trusts over resulting trusts - Focus on the whole course of conduct, not just initial contributions - Key cases: Stack v Dowden, Jones v Kernott - Mortgage payments and improvements often carry significant weight A common trap is relying only on deposit contributions. In reality, later conduct can strongly affect how beneficial ownership is determined. Question Difficulty: High
SQE1 FLK2 Practice Questions
Topic (FLK2): Wills & Administration of Estate
Q9. A solicitor is instructed by a long-standing client to prepare a will. The client is elderly, lives alone, and has no close family nearby. The solicitor has acted for the client for several years in personal matters.
During discussions, the client expresses a wish for the solicitor to take on a more active role in administering their estate due to a lack of trusted individuals. The solicitor drafts a will appointing herself as sole executor and includes a modest financial legacy in recognition of the time and responsibility involved.
The client reviews the will, confirms that it reflects their intentions, and executes it.
After the client’s death, relatives challenge the arrangements, alleging that the solicitor acted improperly.
Which of the following best describes the solicitor’s professional obligations in this situation?
A. The solicitor must avoid conflicts of interest and ensure appropriate safeguards where personal benefit arises
B. A solicitor may include themselves as a beneficiary provided the gift is modest
C. No professional issue arises if the client understood and approved the will
D. Acting as executor is always permissible and removes any conflict concerns
E. Professional duties are limited to drafting accuracy once instructions are followed
Correct Answer: A Explanation: In situations where a solicitor is involved in drafting a will from which they may benefit, strict professional obligations arise due to the risk of conflict of interest and undue influence. Solicitors must act in the client’s best interests and maintain independence. Where a solicitor stands to gain a personal benefit—whether through appointment as executor or through a financial legacy—there is a clear risk that their professional judgment could be compromised. In such cases, the solicitor must: - Identify and manage any conflict of interest - Ensure the client’s wishes are genuinely independent - Consider whether the client should obtain independent legal advice - Avoid situations where their conduct could later be challenged Even where the client appears to understand and approve the arrangements, this alone is not sufficient. The solicitor must be able to demonstrate that appropriate safeguards were in place to protect the client and the integrity of the transaction. Failure to do so may result in professional misconduct and could lead to the will being challenged. (This is a common SQE1 issue involving wills, professional conduct, and conflicts of interest—particularly where solicitors are appointed as executors or beneficiaries.) Why the other options are wrong: B. A solicitor may include themselves as a beneficiary provided the gift is modest Incorrect. The size of the benefit is irrelevant. Any personal benefit creates a potential conflict requiring safeguards. C. No professional issue arises if the client understood and approved the will Incorrect. Client approval alone does not remove the solicitor’s duty to manage conflicts and ensure independence. D. Acting as executor is always permissible and removes any conflict concerns Incorrect. Acting as executor may still give rise to a conflict, particularly where combined with a financial benefit. E. Professional duties are limited to drafting accuracy once instructions are followed Incorrect. Professional obligations extend beyond drafting and include ethical duties such as avoiding conflicts and acting in the client’s best interests. Exam Tip: For SQE1 questions on wills and professional conduct: - Any personal benefit to a solicitor is a red flag - Client consent does not eliminate conflict concerns - Independent advice is often expected where benefit arises - Focus on safeguarding the client, not just following instructions A common trap is assuming that “client agreed” = compliant. It doesn’t. Question Difficulty: Medium–High
Topic (FLK2): Solicitor Accounts
Q10. A solicitor receives £2,000 from a client at the outset of a retainer. The client explains that the payment is intended to “cover everything for now,” including future legal work and any third-party costs that may arise.
At the time the payment is received:
-
No bill has been issued
-
No disbursements have yet been paid
-
The solicitor has not agreed how the funds will be allocated
Which of the following best describes how the solicitor must initially deal with this money under the SRA Accounts Rules?
A. Pay the entire sum into the office account, as it relates to anticipated fees
B. Immediately transfer an estimated portion for fees into the office account
C. Pay the entire sum into the client account until costs are incurred or billed
D. Hold the funds outside both accounts until allocation is confirmed
E. Pay only the anticipated disbursements into the client account and retain the rest
Correct Answer: C Explanation: Under the SRA Accounts Rules, money received from or on behalf of a client is treated as client money unless and until it becomes properly due to the solicitor. Where funds are paid on account of costs or disbursements: - They must be held in the client account - They remain client money until a bill is delivered or a disbursement is incurred In this scenario: - No bill has been issued, so no fees are yet due - No disbursements have been paid - The allocation of funds is not yet determined As a result, the entire £2,000 must initially be treated as client money and held in the client account. The solicitor may only transfer money to the office account once fees have become due (typically after billing), or use the funds to pay disbursements when they arise. (This is a common SQE1 issue involving money on account and the distinction between client money and office money.) Why the other options are wrong: A. Pay the entire sum into the office account, as it relates to anticipated fees Incorrect. Money for anticipated fees is still client money until a bill is issued. B. Immediately transfer an estimated portion for fees into the office account Incorrect. Funds cannot be transferred based on estimates. Fees must be properly due before transfer. D. Hold the funds outside both accounts until allocation is confirmed Incorrect. The SRA Accounts Rules require client money to be promptly paid into a client account. E. Pay only the anticipated disbursements into the client account and retain the rest Incorrect. The entire sum remains client money until costs are incurred or billed. Exam Tip: For SQE1 Solicitor Accounts questions: - Money on account = client money - Fees are only office money once billed - Disbursements become payable when incurred - If in doubt, default to client account The common trap is assuming that intended use determines treatment. It doesn’t — timing does. Question Difficulty: Medium
Topic (FLK2): Land Law
Q11. In 2018, Daniel acquired an equitable interest in a piece of unregistered land under a trust arrangement. The legal title remained with Olivia.
In 2022, Olivia sold the land to Priya, who paid full market value and was registered as the legal owner. Priya made reasonable inspections of the property and reviewed the title deeds but was not aware of Daniel’s interest.
Daniel later asserts that his equitable interest should bind Priya.
Which of the following best explains Priya’s position?
A. Priya is bound because equitable interests automatically bind all purchasers
B. Priya takes free of Daniel’s interest because she acquired the legal estate for value without notice
C. Daniel’s interest takes priority because it arose first in time
D. Priority depends on whether Daniel’s interest was registered as a land charge
E. Priya is bound because she failed to investigate the title fully
Correct Answer: B Explanation: In unregistered land, priority between competing interests is governed by the doctrine of notice. An equitable interest will bind a purchaser unless the purchaser qualifies as a bona fide purchaser of a legal estate for value without notice (often referred to as “equity’s darling”). To rely on this protection, the purchaser must: - Acquire a legal estate - Provide valuable consideration - Have no notice (actual, constructive, or imputed) of the prior equitable interest In this scenario: - Priya acquired the legal estate - She paid full market value - She carried out reasonable checks and had no notice of Daniel’s interest As a result, Priya takes the land free from Daniel’s earlier equitable interest. (This is a core SQE1 Land Law issue concerning unregistered land and the doctrine of notice.) Why the other options are wrong: A. Priya is bound because equitable interests automatically bind all purchasers Incorrect. Equitable interests do not bind a bona fide purchaser of a legal estate for value without notice. C. Daniel’s interest takes priority because it arose first in time Incorrect. The “first in time” rule applies unless displaced by a bona fide purchaser without notice. D. Priority depends on whether Daniel’s interest was registered as a land charge Incorrect. Land charges apply to certain equitable interests, but not all equitable interests are registrable in this way, and the question turns on notice. E. Priya is bound because she failed to investigate the title fully Incorrect. The facts indicate that Priya made reasonable enquiries. There is no constructive notice. Exam Tip: For SQE1 questions on unregistered land: - Start with “first in time,” then check for exceptions - The key exception is a bona fide purchaser without notice - Always assess: legal estate, value, and notice - Notice includes actual, constructive, and imputed notice The trap is overcomplicating it — this area is binary once those elements are satisfied. Question Difficulty: Medium
Topic (FLK2): Trusts Law
Q12. A solicitor is instructed to formalise an arrangement under which a client is to have a beneficial interest in land held by another party. The solicitor prepares the documentation but does not ensure that the arrangement is properly recorded in a signed written document.
Some time later, a dispute arises. The court finds that the client cannot enforce the alleged trust due to non-compliance with the required formalities.
The client claims that, had the arrangement been properly documented, they would have obtained the intended beneficial interest.
Which of the following best explains the client’s likely legal remedy?
A. The client may bring a claim in negligence against the solicitor
B. A resulting trust automatically arises to give effect to the client’s intention
C. The arrangement is enforceable despite the lack of written evidence
D. The solicitor is protected from liability due to the client’s instructions
E. The client has no remedy because the trust failed for lack of formality
Correct Answer: A Explanation: A solicitor owes a duty to exercise reasonable skill and care when carrying out instructions. This includes ensuring that legal documents comply with any required formalities. Under section 53(1)(b) of the Law of Property Act 1925, a declaration of trust concerning land must be evidenced in signed writing. Failure to comply with this requirement renders the trust unenforceable. In this scenario: - The solicitor was instructed to formalise a beneficial interest - The solicitor failed to ensure compliance with statutory formalities - As a result, the client lost the intended interest This amounts to a failure to exercise reasonable care and skill, giving rise to a claim in professional negligence. If the client can show that: - The solicitor owed a duty of care - The duty was breached - The breach caused loss (loss of the beneficial interest) then the client is likely to succeed in a negligence claim and recover damages reflecting the value of the lost interest. (This is a common SQE1 issue combining trusts formalities with professional negligence.) Why the other options are wrong: B. A resulting trust automatically arises to give effect to the client’s intention Incorrect. Resulting trusts arise in limited circumstances (e.g. contributions to purchase price), not simply to cure failed formalities. C. The arrangement is enforceable despite the lack of written evidence Incorrect. Section 53(1)(b) requires signed writing for enforceability. D. The solicitor is protected from liability due to the client’s instructions Incorrect. A solicitor cannot rely on instructions to justify failing to comply with legal requirements. E. The client has no remedy because the trust failed for lack of formality Incorrect. While the trust fails, the client may still pursue a negligence claim against the solicitor. Exam Tip: For SQE1 Trusts questions involving formalities: - Identify whether the issue is validity or enforceability - Separate the trust law issue from the professional conduct issue - If a solicitor’s error causes loss, think negligence - Always link breach → loss → remedy The trap is stopping at “the trust fails.” The exam wants you to go one step further: who is liable for that failure? Question Difficulty: Medium
Topic (FLK2): Criminal Law & Practice
Q13. D becomes involved in a fight in a crowded nightclub after consuming a large amount of alcohol. During the incident, D strikes V several times with considerable force. Witnesses describe D as acting aggressively, but there is no evidence that D planned the attack or intended to cause serious injury.
V is later found to have sustained fractured ribs and other significant injuries.
Which of the following is the most appropriate offence under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861?
A. Causing grievous bodily harm with intent contrary to s.18
B. Inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to s.20
C. Assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s.47
D. Battery contrary to s.39
E. No offence due to voluntary intoxication
Correct Answer: B Explanation: The key issue is whether D’s conduct amounts to grievous bodily harm (GBH) and whether the required mental element is satisfied. GBH refers to serious harm, which includes injuries such as broken bones. Fractured ribs clearly meet this threshold. For an offence under s.20: - The prosecution must prove that the defendant inflicted GBH - The defendant must have intended or been reckless as to causing some harm (not necessarily serious harm) In this scenario: - V suffered fractured ribs, which constitutes GBH - D repeatedly punched V with significant force - Even if D did not intend serious harm, they at least foresaw the risk of causing some harm Voluntary intoxication does not negate the mens rea for basic intent offences such as s.20. There is insufficient evidence of a specific intent to cause serious harm, which is required for s.18. As a result, the most appropriate charge is s.20. (This is a common SQE1 issue requiring candidates to distinguish between levels of harm and intent under the Offences Against the Person Act.) Why the other options are wrong: A. Causing grievous bodily harm with intent contrary to s.18 Incorrect. Requires specific intent to cause serious harm, which is not clearly established. C. Assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s.47 Incorrect. The injuries go beyond ABH and amount to GBH. D. Battery contrary to s.39 Incorrect. This applies to minor physical contact, not serious injury. E. No offence due to voluntary intoxication Incorrect. Voluntary intoxication is not a defence to basic intent offences such as s.20. Exam Tip: For SQE1 criminal law questions on non-fatal offences: - Start with the level of harm (ABH vs GBH) - Then assess mens rea (intent vs recklessness) - s.18 = intent to cause serious harm - s.20 = intent/recklessness as to some harm - s.47 = harm less than serious The trap is over-focusing on intent. If serious injury is present but intent is unclear, s.20 is usually correct. Question Difficulty: Medium
Your 2nd SQE1 Practice Score
Track your performance:
-
10–13 correct → Strong pass level
-
7–9 correct → Borderline
-
Below 7 → Needs improvement
👉 If you’re below pass level, you need more exam-style practice under time pressure.
Stop Paying £2,000 for SQE1 Prep
Most SQE1 candidates spend £1,500–£3,000 on prep courses.
You don’t need to.
-
Practise with realistic SQE1 exam scenarios
-
Learn how to identify the correct answer under pressure
-
Build confidence with full-length 180-question mock exams
👉 Get full SQE1 preparation for just £12.99/month
SQE1 Sample Questions, FLK1 & FLK2 Practice, and Mock Exams
These SQE1 sample questions are designed to help you prepare across all key areas of the exam, including:
-
SQE1 FLK1 practice questions
-
SQE1 FLK2 practice questions
-
Full-length SQE1 mock exams
-
Single best answer MCQs used in the real assessment
All questions follow the scenario-based format used in the SQE1, helping you develop the ability to apply legal knowledge under exam conditions.