These ten free SQE1-style practice questions cover a selection of topics from FLK1 and FLK2. Each has five options and one best answer. They are adapted from the MCQ Master question bank, with explanations of the correct answer and every alternative.
Attempt each question before opening its answer. Note any answer you reached by guessing, even if it turns out to be correct. This short selection is for learning: it is not an official SRA paper, a full syllabus sample or a predictor of your exam result.
For the official format and preparation materials, use the SRA’s SQE1 sample questions. For a repeatable answering method, see our law MCQ technique guide.
1. Business law: liability as a shareholder
Emma and Liam want to run a design consultancy. They form a private company limited by shares and pay the full amount due on their shares. The company later owes a supplier £12,000. Neither has given a personal guarantee, and no separate basis for personal liability arises.
Which statement best describes their liability as shareholders for that debt?
- A. They must each pay half because they founded the company.
- B. They must pay in proportion to their initial investment.
- C. They must pay if the company has insufficient cash.
- D. They are not liable to pay it merely because they are shareholders; their shares are fully paid.
- E. They must pay because limited liability applies only to public companies.
Answer and explanation
Answer: D. For a company limited by shares, members’ liability is limited to any amount unpaid on their shares. The facts remove guarantees and other grounds of personal liability. See Companies Act 2006, section 3.
A confuses founding a company with personally undertaking its debts. B invents a contribution-based debt allocation. C treats a company’s shortage of funds as automatically removing limited liability. E wrongly confines limited liability to public companies.
Learning point: identify the capacity in which liability is being considered. A person may be a shareholder, director and guarantor, but those are different legal questions.
2. Contract: a conditional response
A seller offers a bicycle to a buyer for £400, payable in two instalments, with collection by the buyer. The buyer replies: “I will buy it on those terms only if you deliver it free.” The seller rejects that condition. The buyer then says they will collect it on the original terms. The seller has not renewed the original offer.
Is the buyer’s final response an effective acceptance of the original offer?
- A. No. The conditional response was a counter-offer that rejected the original offer.
- B. Yes. Any reply containing the words “I will buy” is an acceptance.
- C. Yes. A request for an additional contractual term cannot affect an existing offer.
- D. No. An offer to sell goods is never capable of acceptance without a signed document.
- E. Yes. The seller must keep the original offer open until the buyer expressly abandons the purchase.
Answer and explanation
Answer: A. “Only if” makes the response conditional on a new term. That is a counter-offer, not a simple inquiry. The original offer is no longer available for acceptance. Compare Hyde v Wrench (1840).
B ignores the condition. C incorrectly treats a counter-offer as legally irrelevant. D invents a general signature requirement for all sales of goods. E invents a duty to keep the offer open.
Learning point: a counter-offer rejects an offer; it is not the same thing as the offeror revoking it. Read the whole reply.
3. Dispute resolution: service on a solicitor
A claimant wishes to serve a claim form in England and Wales. The defendant’s solicitor, whose business address is in England, has written to the claimant confirming that they are instructed to accept service of this claim form at that address. No rule or order requires personal service and no exception applies.
Where must the claim form be served under CPR 6.7(1)?
- A. Only at the defendant’s home.
- B. At either the defendant’s home or the solicitor’s address, entirely at the claimant’s choice.
- C. At the solicitor’s specified business address.
- D. At the solicitor’s address only if the claim exceeds £10,000.
- E. At the solicitor’s address only after a separate court order is obtained.
Answer and explanation
Answer: C. With the stated written notification and conditions, CPR 6.7(1) requires service at that solicitor’s business address. Read CPR 6.7.
A and B ignore the mandatory consequence of the rule on these facts. D introduces an irrelevant value threshold. E adds a court-order requirement that the stated route does not impose.
Learning point: previous correspondence from a solicitor is different from written notification of authority to accept service. The rule also provides a route where the defendant gives the solicitor’s address in writing for service; this question concerns the solicitor’s notification.
4. Tort: contributory negligence
James negligently drives through a red light and collides with Emma’s bicycle. Emma suffers head and other injuries. The court finds that her failure to wear a helmet was a failure to take reasonable care for her own safety and contributed to the severity of her head injury. James’s negligence caused the collision.
What is the best statement of the effect of Emma’s contributory fault?
- A. It automatically defeats her entire claim.
- B. It always requires a 50% reduction.
- C. It means the collision was legally caused only by Emma.
- D. It is irrelevant because James caused the collision.
- E. Damages are reduced to the extent the court considers just and equitable having regard to her responsibility for the damage.
Answer and explanation
Answer: E. That is the approach in section 1 of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945. The question expressly supplies findings of fault and contribution to the injury.
A treats contributory negligence as a complete bar. B invents a fixed percentage. C ignores James’s causal negligence. D overlooks the difference between causing an accident and contributing to the resulting harm.
Learning point: do not infer from this example that every cyclist without a helmet is contributorily negligent. The relevant findings and evidence must be established.
5. Ethics: an adverse authority
A solicitor preparing to present a claimant’s case discovers a directly relevant Court of Appeal decision that is likely to have a material effect on the outcome. It is unfavourable to the claimant. The opponent has not mentioned it.
What should the solicitor do?
- A. Ignore it because the opponent bears sole responsibility for adverse authorities.
- B. Draw it to the court’s attention and address its effect on the case.
- C. Mention it only if the judge asks about contrary decisions.
- D. Tell the opponent privately but keep it out of submissions to the court.
- E. Omit it as long as no positive false statement is made.
Answer and explanation
Answer: B. Paragraph 2.7 of the SRA Code of Conduct requires drawing the court’s attention to known relevant authorities likely to have a material effect. Paragraph 1.4 separately prohibits misleading conduct, including by omission.
A makes the solicitor’s duty depend on the opponent’s research. C wrongly makes a proactive duty conditional on a question. D substitutes disclosure to the opponent for the duty to the court. E ignores misleading omissions.
Learning point: you may explain why an authority is distinguishable, but you cannot conceal a relevant adverse case merely because it harms your argument.
6. Criminal law: burglary after entry
Emma knowingly enters someone else’s house as a trespasser through an open window, intending only to retrieve her own jacket. Once inside, she decides to steal a laptop and dishonestly takes it with the intention of permanently depriving its owner of it. No defence applies.
Which statement best explains liability under section 9(1)(b) of the Theft Act 1968?
- A. There is no burglary because she formed no intention to steal before entry.
- B. There is no burglary because she did not force the window.
- C. There is no burglary because entering to retrieve her own jacket authorises all later conduct.
- D. Having entered as a trespasser, she committed theft inside, satisfying this route to burglary.
- E. There is no burglary unless she intended to cause grievous bodily harm as well as steal.
Answer and explanation
Answer: D. Section 9(1)(b) covers theft or attempted theft after entry as a trespasser, among its specified alternatives.
A imports the timing requirement associated with section 9(1)(a). B invents a requirement for forced entry. C conflicts with the express finding of knowing trespass and supplies no permission to steal. E treats alternative statutory routes as cumulative requirements.
Learning point: separate what the defendant intended at entry from what they did after entry. A short chronology can resolve the distinction.
7. Land law: severance of a beneficial joint tenancy
Alice and Ben own a house as beneficial joint tenants. Alice serves Ben with an effective written notice stating that she severs the beneficial joint tenancy immediately. Ben receives it but does not agree or reply. He later dies, leaving his estate by a valid will to his daughter.
What happens to Ben’s beneficial interest?
- A. His half share forms part of his estate and passes under his will, subject to estate administration.
- B. It passes to Alice by survivorship because Ben did not consent.
- C. It passes to Alice because only a solicitor can serve a severance notice.
- D. It forms part of his estate because death itself automatically severs every joint tenancy.
- E. It passes to Alice because a beneficial joint tenancy can be severed only by a sale.
Answer and explanation
Answer: A. The effective notice severs the beneficial joint tenancy. Consent is not required. Ben therefore has a separate beneficial share rather than an interest passing by survivorship. See Law of Property Act 1925, section 36(2).
B adds a consent requirement. C invents a solicitor-service requirement. D reaches the result for the wrong reason: the notice took effect before death. E ignores severance by written notice.
Learning point: this question concerns the beneficial interest. Do not confuse it with the separate position of the legal title.
8. Trusts: a beneficiary below full age
Liam, aged 17, is the sole beneficiary of an ordinary private trust. His entire beneficial interest is already vested absolutely; payment is merely postponed until 21. He asks whether he can require the trustees to transfer the whole fund to him immediately under the rule in Saunders v Vautier.
Which is the best answer?
- A. Yes, because sole beneficial entitlement removes every age requirement.
- B. Yes, if he shows that he would spend the money sensibly.
- C. No. At 17 he cannot invoke the rule; on these facts he can do so at 18 if he has the necessary capacity.
- D. No. He must always wait until 21, even when adult, capable and absolutely entitled.
- E. Yes, because the trustees can waive the rule’s full-age requirement on his behalf.
Answer and explanation
Answer: C. The rule requires the relevant beneficiary or beneficiaries to be of full age and capacity and together absolutely entitled. Liam’s age prevents him invoking it now. The Law Commission discusses the rule at paragraph 6.38 and footnote 21; section 1 of the Family Law Reform Act 1969 addresses full age.
A and B remove the age condition. D overlooks the effect of absolute entitlement once the requirements are met. E wrongly presents trustee agreement as enabling the minor to invoke this rule.
Learning point: a vested entitlement with postponed payment differs from a gift conditional on reaching an age. Read the trust terms before applying the rule.
9. Wills: a defective codicil
Laila validly executes a will in 2010. In 2022, she signs a codicil intended to change one beneficiary, but only one witness witnesses and signs it. No privileged-will exception applies. The original will has not otherwise been revoked, and there is no other relevant document or event.
Which document governs the estate?
- A. The codicil alone because it is later.
- B. The 2010 will, because the codicil is not validly executed.
- C. Neither; an invalid codicil necessarily invalidates the earlier will.
- D. The intestacy rules, because any attempted amendment cancels a will.
- E. The codicil, but only as to gifts the family agrees are fair.
Answer and explanation
Answer: B. The ordinary execution requirements include two witnesses present together when the testator signs or acknowledges the signature. The codicil fails the applicable formalities, while the question preserves the earlier valid will. See Wills Act 1837, section 9.
A substitutes recency for valid execution. C and D assume a revocation that the facts do not establish. E substitutes family approval for execution requirements.
Learning point: distinguish what the deceased wanted to change from whether the document legally effects that change.
10. Solicitors’ accounts: a client’s property deposit
A solicitor receives £15,000 to hold as a client’s property-purchase deposit. A partner suggests moving it to the firm’s business account overnight to earn interest for the firm, then replacing it before exchange. There is no agreed alternative arrangement or other applicable exception to the client-account requirements.
Is the proposal permissible?
- A. Yes, because an intention to replace the money makes the transfer acceptable.
- B. Yes, because money held before exchange belongs to the firm.
- C. Yes, provided the transfer lasts less than 24 hours.
- D. No, solely because the likely interest is too small to justify the work.
- E. No. It is client money and the proposal improperly treats it as business money.
Answer and explanation
Answer: E. The deposit is client money under rule 2.1. Rule 2.3 addresses prompt payment into a client account and rule 4.1 requires separation from the firm’s money. The facts exclude an applicable alternative. SRA Accounts Rules.
A and C invent permission based on temporary use. B misclassifies a client’s deposit. D mistakes a regulatory problem for a commercial calculation.
Learning point: identify whose money it is and why the firm holds it before deciding where it belongs. A plan to repay it later does not answer that question.
What should you do with your score?
Count a correct guess as a topic to revisit. For each error, write down the rule, the decisive fact and why your chosen option failed. Then try a different question on that point. Ten questions cannot measure readiness across the full SQE1 syllabus.
If you want more practice by subject and subtopic, explore MCQ Master. It includes written explanations to help you review your decisions and build on this sample.
For revision across the full syllabus, Law Answered+ gives you access to all our revision guides and casebooks, with MCQ Master included. One membership brings together the resources to learn the law, revise the cases and practise applying your knowledge. Use the guides to resolve a gap, then return to questions to check your understanding.
For a closer look at two underlying topics, see offer or invitation to treat and resulting and constructive trusts.