Free SQE1 mock — 180 single-best-answer questions in the FLK format 🇬🇧

8 original practice questions written by Myndaq in the SQE1 (FLK1 + FLK2) style. They are not taken from this mock paper or from official past papers. Try each one, then open the answer.

1. Question 1FLK1 - ContractOne correct answer

   A joiner emails a flooring merchant: "I will sell you the whole of my remaining oak board stock for £8,000. This offer stays open until 5pm on Friday."

   On Wednesday the merchant emails back: "I will take the lot at £7,200." The joiner does not reply. On Thursday morning the merchant emails: "On reflection, I accept at £8,000." The joiner then sells the boards to a third party and tells the merchant there is no deal.

   Which of the following best explains the contractual position between the joiner and the merchant?

   1. A. There is a binding contract, because the joiner promised to keep the offer open until 5pm on Friday and the merchant accepted before then.
   2. B. There is a binding contract, because the merchant accepted the joiner's stated price of £8,000 without qualification.
   3. C. There is no contract, because the merchant's reply of £7,200 was a counter-offer which brought the joiner's original offer to an end.
   4. D. There is no contract, because the sale of the boards to the third party automatically revoked the joiner's offer.
   5. E. There is no contract, because an offer made by email cannot be accepted by email unless the offer says so.
   Show answer and explanation

   Answer: C

   A counter-offer rejects and destroys the original offer, which is then no longer capable of acceptance (Hyde v Wrench). The merchant's reply of £7,200 introduced a different price rather than seeking information, so the £8,000 offer was gone by Thursday and the later "acceptance" was itself a fresh offer, which the joiner declined.

   A is wrong because a promise to keep an offer open is not binding unless it is supported by consideration or made by deed. B ignores the intervening counter-offer. D is wrong because revocation must be communicated to the offeree, and here the sale happened after the purported acceptance in any event. E is wrong: email is plainly an acceptable means of acceptance where the offer was itself made by email.

2. Question 2FLK1 - TortOne correct answer

   A garden centre closes at 6pm. At about 10pm a man climbs over its locked side gate to retrieve a football that his son had kicked into the yard. In the dark he falls into an unfenced inspection pit near the loading bay and breaks his ankle. The manager knew the pit was open and had said more than once that children and neighbours "are forever coming over that gate after balls".

   Which of the following best states the garden centre's potential liability to the man?

   1. A. The centre owes him the common duty of care under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, because he entered only to recover his own property.
   2. B. The centre owes him no duty of any kind, because a person who climbs a locked gate at night falls outside the protection of both Occupiers' Liability Acts.
   3. C. The centre is liable without proof of fault, because an unfenced pit is an unusual danger on its land.
   4. D. The centre may owe him a duty under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984, because it knew of the pit, had reason to believe someone might come into its vicinity and the risk may be one against which it could reasonably be expected to offer some protection.
   5. E. The centre owes him a duty under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 only if it had first erected a warning notice at the gate.
   Show answer and explanation

   Answer: D

   The man entered without permission and outside opening hours, so he is a trespasser and the 1957 Act does not apply to him. Section 1(3) of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 imposes a duty where the occupier is aware of the danger, knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that someone may come into its vicinity, and the risk is one against which, in all the circumstances, it is reasonable to expect some protection. The manager's knowledge of both the open pit and the habit of people coming over the gate supplies the first two elements, so a duty may well arise.

   A is wrong because recovering property does not confer a licence to enter. B overstates the position: the 1984 Act exists precisely to cover trespassers. C is wrong because occupiers' liability is fault-based, not strict. E inverts the position; a warning may discharge the duty under section 1(5), it is not what creates it.

3. Question 3FLK1 - Business Law and PracticeOne correct answer

   A private company limited by shares has adopted the Model Articles without amendment. It has three shareholders and three directors. One director holds 30 per cent of the issued ordinary shares; the other two hold 35 per cent each. The two majority shareholders have lost confidence in him and want him removed from the board as soon as the law allows. There is no service contract and nothing in the articles deals with removal.

   Which of the following correctly describes how the company may remove the director from office?

   1. A. By ordinary resolution at a general meeting, with special notice of at least 28 days given to the company; the resolution may not be passed as a written resolution.
   2. B. By special resolution at a general meeting, on at least 14 clear days' notice to the members.
   3. C. By written resolution circulated to the members and approved by holders of a simple majority of the eligible shares, with no notice to the director.
   4. D. By a resolution of the board alone, because the Model Articles empower the directors to remove one of their number.
   5. E. By ordinary resolution, but only with the director's consent, because he is also a shareholder.
   Show answer and explanation

   Answer: A

   Section 168 of the Companies Act 2006 allows the members to remove a director before the end of his period of office by ordinary resolution, notwithstanding anything in the articles or any agreement. Special notice of at least 28 days must be given to the company under section 312, and the company must send a copy to the director, who may make written representations and speak at the meeting. Section 288(2) expressly excludes a resolution under section 168 from the written resolution procedure.

   B is wrong on both the majority and the notice regime. C is wrong because of the written resolution exclusion. D is wrong: the Model Articles allow a director's office to terminate in defined circumstances but give the board no general power of removal. E is wrong because the shareholding gives him no veto; with 30 per cent he cannot defeat an ordinary resolution.

4. Question 4FLK1 - Dispute ResolutionOne correct answer

   A claim form and particulars of claim in a contract dispute are deemed served on the defendant company on Monday 5 January 2026. The defendant instructs solicitors, who file an acknowledgment of service at court on Monday 12 January 2026 indicating an intention to defend the whole claim. No extension has been agreed with the claimant and no application has been made to the court.

   By when must the defence be filed?

   1. A. 19 January 2026
   2. B. 26 January 2026
   3. C. 2 February 2026
   4. D. 5 February 2026
   5. E. 9 February 2026
   Show answer and explanation

   Answer: C

   Under CPR 15.4, the general period for filing a defence is 14 days after service of the particulars of claim, but where the defendant files an acknowledgment of service that period is extended to 28 days after service of the particulars. The acknowledgment was filed in time, so the clock runs 28 days from 5 January 2026, giving 2 February 2026.

   A is the unextended 14-day date. B wrongly runs 14 days from the acknowledgment rather than from service of the particulars. D is a calendar month from service, which is not the rule. E applies the correct 28-day period but runs it from the date the acknowledgment of service was filed rather than from service of the particulars. The parties may agree a further 28 days under CPR 15.5, but no extension was agreed here.

5. Question 5FLK2 - Land LawOne correct answer

   Two friends bought a registered leasehold flat together and are registered as joint proprietors, holding the beneficial interest as joint tenants. In March one of them signs a letter to the other reading: "I want our joint tenancy severed from today, so that we hold in shares." She posts it and it is delivered through the letterbox of the flat, which is the other co-owner's home. The other co-owner is abroad, does not open the post and later says she never saw it.

   In May the friend who wrote the letter dies. Her will leaves her whole estate to her brother.

   Which of the following best describes the position on her death?

   1. A. The surviving co-owner takes the whole beneficial interest by survivorship, because the notice was never actually read.
   2. B. The beneficial joint tenancy was severed, so the deceased's half share passes under her will to her brother.
   3. C. The beneficial joint tenancy was severed only if the surviving co-owner had replied in writing agreeing to the severance.
   4. D. No severance occurred, because a beneficial joint tenancy of registered land can be severed only by a registered transfer of the legal estate.
   5. E. The notice severed both the legal and the beneficial joint tenancy, so the brother becomes a legal co-owner alongside the survivor.
   Show answer and explanation

   Answer: B

   Section 36(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925 allows a beneficial joint tenant to sever by giving written notice to the other joint tenants. The notice must be served, not read: section 196(3) treats a notice as sufficiently served if it is left at the last known place of abode of the person to be served, so delivery through the letterbox of the flat was good service even though the letter went unopened. The parties therefore held as tenants in common in equal shares from March, survivorship did not operate, and the deceased's half share devolves under her will.

   A fails because actual receipt is not required. C is wrong because severance by notice is unilateral and needs no agreement. D confuses severance of the equitable interest with dealings in the legal estate. E is wrong because section 36(2) prohibits severance of the legal joint tenancy; the survivor holds the legal estate alone, on trust for herself and the brother.

6. Question 6FLK2 - Criminal Law and PracticeOne correct answer

   During normal trading hours a man walks into a hardware shop as an ordinary customer. He pushes open a door marked "Staff only" and goes into the stockroom, intending to help himself to power tools kept there. A member of staff sees him at once and he walks straight back out, having touched nothing.

   Which of the following best describes his criminal liability?

   1. A. He commits no offence, because he was lawfully in the shop and took nothing.
   2. B. He commits theft, because walking into the stockroom was itself an appropriation of the goods stored in it.
   3. C. He commits burglary under section 9(1)(b) of the Theft Act 1968, because he entered as a trespasser and stole.
   4. D. He commits burglary under section 9(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968, complete when he entered the stockroom as a trespasser intending to steal.
   5. E. He commits attempted theft only, because burglary is not made out unless property is actually taken.
   Show answer and explanation

   Answer: D

   A person who enters part of a building as a trespasser with intent to steal commits burglary under section 9(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968, and the offence is complete on entry. The general permission to enter a shop extends only to the public areas; by going through the staff door he exceeded that permission and entered a part of the building as a trespasser, and he did so with the necessary intent.

   A overlooks that the licence to enter was limited in scope. B is wrong because he assumed no right over any particular item, so there was no appropriation. C is wrong because section 9(1)(b) requires an actual theft or attempt after entry, and nothing was taken. E is wrong because burglary under section 9(1)(a) turns on the intent at the moment of entry, not on the outcome.

7. Question 7FLK2 - Wills and the Administration of EstatesOne correct answer

   A widower makes a will that is signed by him in the presence of two witnesses, who each then sign in his presence. The will leaves a legacy of £20,000 to his neighbour and the residue to a charity. One of the two witnesses is the neighbour's husband; the other is unconnected with anyone named in the will. The witnesses' signatures are the only ones on the attestation clause.

   What is the effect of the neighbour's husband having acted as a witness?

   1. A. The whole will is invalid and the estate passes on intestacy.
   2. B. The will is validly executed, but the legacy of £20,000 to the neighbour is void.
   3. C. The will and the legacy are both valid, because the other witness's signature alone satisfies the attestation requirement.
   4. D. The will is valid and the legacy takes effect, but only to the extent of half of the £20,000.
   5. E. The will is valid and the legacy takes effect, because the restriction applies only where the witness is personally named as a beneficiary.
   Show answer and explanation

   Answer: B

   Section 15 of the Wills Act 1837 makes void any gift to a person who attests the will, or to the spouse or civil partner of an attesting witness, although the will itself remains validly executed. The neighbour's husband attested, so the legacy to the neighbour fails and the £20,000 falls into residue for the charity.

   C is wrong because section 1 of the Wills Act 1968 saves such a gift only if the will is duly executed without that witness's signature; here there were just two witnesses, so his signature is needed to satisfy section 9 of the Wills Act 1837 and the saving provision cannot apply. A overstates the consequence, since section 15 strikes down the gift, not the will. D invents an apportionment that has no basis in the section. E is wrong because section 15 expressly extends to the spouse of a witness.

8. Question 8FLK2 - TrustsOne correct answer

   A man is the sole registered proprietor of a cottage. Over dinner, in front of two of his cousins, he tells his sister: "From today I am holding the cottage for you, not for me. It is yours in everything but the paperwork." He puts nothing in writing and the register is not altered. Two years later he falls out with his sister and denies that she has any interest in the cottage.

   Which of the following best describes the status of the sister's claimed interest?

   1. A. The declaration is fully effective, because a trust of any property may be declared orally provided the three certainties are present.
   2. B. The declaration is unenforceable, because a declaration of trust respecting land must be manifested and proved by writing signed by the person able to declare it.
   3. C. The declaration is void, because a trust of land can be created only by deed.
   4. D. The declaration is effective, because the cousins who heard it can give evidence and so supply the necessary formality.
   5. E. No trust can arise, because a person cannot declare himself trustee of property he already owns outright.
   Show answer and explanation

   Answer: B

   Section 53(1)(b) of the Law of Property Act 1925 requires a declaration of trust respecting land or any interest in land to be manifested and proved by some writing signed by the person able to declare the trust. The requirement is evidential rather than constitutive, so the oral declaration is not void, but the sister cannot enforce it without signed written evidence, and here none exists.

   A states the rule for personalty and ignores the special treatment of land. C is wrong because no deed is needed; signed writing suffices. D is wrong because oral testimony, however credible, does not meet a statutory writing requirement. E is wrong in principle: a self-declaration of trust by an absolute owner is a recognised way of creating a trust, and it needs no transfer of the legal title.