SQE1 · FLK1 · Free samples

Dispute Resolution — free SQE1 sample questions

93 free, worked single-best-answer questions for Dispute Resolution, shown in the official SRA SBAQ format with the correct answer and a cited rationale. Drill the full bank in timed practice once you’ve worked through these.

1. Question 1

   A solicitor is instructed by a client in a personal injury claim valued at £35,000. The client has before-the-event (BTE) insurance but limited means. The solicitor advises on all available funding options. The client's overriding priority is to avoid any personal financial risk, including liability for their own solicitor's fees if the claim fails and for the opponent's costs if the claim fails. Which single funding arrangement best meets the client's requirements?

   • A.A conditional fee agreement (CFA) with a success fee, relying on the BTE insurance to cover disbursements and any adverse costs exposure
   • B.A damages-based agreement (DBA) under which the solicitor receives no payment if the claim fails, capped at 25% of damages recovered
   • C.Traditional hourly-rate billing, with qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS) protecting the client against an adverse costs order
   • D.A CFA with a success fee, combined with after-the-event (ATE) insurance to cover disbursements and any adverse costs exposure✓ correct
   • E.Third-party litigation funding, with the funder meeting all costs in exchange for a share of any damages recovered

   Why D is correct

   ## Correct answer: D ### Why D is best The client has two distinct financial risks: 1. **Own solicitor's fees if the claim fails** – eliminated by a CFA under s.58 Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, because under a CFA the solicitor receives no base fee on a loss ('no win, no fee'). A success fee rewards the solicitor for taking that risk and is payable only on success (deducted from damages post-LASPO 2012, not recovered from the opponent: s.44 LASPO 2012). 2. **Opponent's costs and disbursements if the claim fails** – in personal injury claims QOCS (CPR rr.44.13–44.17) provides significant protection against adverse costs orders, but QOCS does not cover the client's own disbursements (e.g. medical reports, court fees). ATE insurance fills that gap, covering disbursements and any residual adverse costs exposure (e.g. where QOCS protection is lost under CPR r.44.15–16 for fundamental dishonesty or strike-out). Combining a CFA with a success fee **and** ATE insurance therefore eliminates **both** limbs of financial risk, which is precisely what the client requires. ### Why the BTE insurance in option A is inferior BTE insurance (option A) may cover disbursements and adverse costs, but the insurer will typically impose conditions: choice of solicitor may be restricted, the insurer may withdraw cover if prospects fall below a threshold, and the policy may not cover all disbursements. ATE insurance (option D) is taken out specifically for this litigation and is tailored to the claim, giving more reliable and comprehensive protection. Where BTE cover is adequate it should be used first (Sarwar v Alam [2001] EWCA Civ 1401), but the question asks which arrangement *best* meets the client's requirements; ATE combined with a CFA provides the most complete and certain protection. ### Why the other options are wrong - **Option A (CFA + BTE only):** BTE cover may be inadequate or subject to insurer control; ATE is the more reliable solution for full protection. - **Option B (DBA):** A DBA under the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/609), reg.4 caps the solicitor's share at 25% of damages in personal injury. The client pays nothing if the claim fails, so own-fees risk is eliminated. However, a DBA does not in itself cover adverse costs or disbursements on a loss; without ATE or BTE the client retains that risk. A DBA alone therefore does not fully meet the requirement. - **Option C (hourly rate + QOCS):** QOCS protects against adverse costs orders (CPR r.44.14) but does not eliminate the client's liability for their own solicitor's hourly-rate fees. A client of limited means paying hourly rates bears full own-costs risk — directly contrary to the stated requirement. - **Option E (third-party funding):** Third-party funders typically require a commercial return (a multiple of their outlay or a share of damages) and retain control rights over settlement. The client 'assigns' part of the damages, reducing net recovery. Funders also tend to require strong prospects and significant claim values; at £35,000 this claim is at the lower end of what funders will consider. This option does not best meet the client's requirements compared with the well-established CFA + ATE model. ### Key authorities and rules - s.58 Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (as amended by LASPO 2012): CFAs - s.44 Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012: success fees not recoverable from opponent - CPR rr.44.13–44.17: QOCS in personal injury - Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/609), reg.4: 25% cap - Sarwar v Alam [2001] EWCA Civ 1401: duty to consider BTE before ATE

2. Question 2

   A defendant applies for summary judgment, arguing that the claimant's case has no real prospect of success. At the hearing, the judge is not satisfied that the claim should be dismissed entirely but believes part of the claim is clearly unsustainable. The claimant's total claim is for £80,000, comprising £50,000 for breach of contract and £30,000 for misrepresentation. The judge finds the misrepresentation claim has no real prospect of success but the contract claim raises triable issues. What order should the judge make?

   • A.Dismiss the entire claim because part of it has no real prospect of success
   • B.Grant summary judgment on the misrepresentation claim only and allow the contract claim to proceed to trial✓ correct
   • C.Refuse summary judgment and allow the entire claim to proceed because one element is arguable
   • D.Grant conditional leave to defend requiring the claimant to pay money into court
   • E.Strike out the misrepresentation claim under CPR 3.4 and give summary judgment on the contract claim

   Why B is correct

   CPR 24.2 permits the court to give summary judgment on the whole claim or 'on a particular issue'. The court can therefore grant summary judgment dismissing the misrepresentation claim (£30,000) while allowing the contract claim (£50,000) to proceed to trial. This approach is endorsed in Easyair Ltd v Opal Telecom Ltd [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch), which confirms that summary judgment can be given on distinct parts of a claim. Option C is wrong because the court is not required to allow an unsustainable claim to proceed merely because other parts are arguable. Option E conflates summary judgment with strike-out; the correct route here is CPR Part 24.

3. Question 3

   A claimant and defendant are engaged in multi-track litigation. At the case management conference, the court orders standard disclosure by 4pm on 30 June. On 29 June, the claimant's solicitor realizes they cannot complete disclosure by the deadline due to unexpected difficulty accessing archived documents. No application for extension has been made. What step should the claimant's solicitor take immediately?

   • A.Serve disclosure by 30 June limited to currently accessible documents and serve supplemental disclosure later
   • B.Apply urgently for an extension of time, either by consent or on notice if the defendant does not agree✓ correct
   • C.Serve disclosure on 2 July and rely on the two-day rule for non-compliance with court orders
   • D.Write to the court explaining the difficulty and asking the court to extend time of its own initiative
   • E.Wait for the defendant to apply for an unless order before taking any action

   Why B is correct

   CPR 3.1(2)(a) permits the court to extend time, but an application is required unless the parties agree under CPR 2.11 (and even then, court approval may be needed for certain orders). The claimant should immediately seek the defendant's consent to extend the deadline; if refused, an urgent application on notice must be made under CPR 23. Option A risks breaching the order and Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1537 emphasizes strict compliance with court orders. Option C is wrong; there is no 'two-day rule' for court-ordered deadlines. Deliberate or negligent non-compliance attracts sanctions under CPR 3.9, as Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906 confirms.

4. Question 4

   A claimant's solicitor receives the defendant's list of documents. One document is described as 'advice from solicitor to defendant dated 15 March 2023' and is listed in part 2 of the list (documents the defendant has but claims the right to withhold from inspection). The defendant claims legal advice privilege. The claimant's solicitor doubts the claim because the document appears to relate to a conveyancing transaction, not the litigation. What is the appropriate next step for the claimant's solicitor?

   • A.Apply immediately to the court for an order that the defendant produce the document for inspection
   • B.Write to the defendant requesting voluntary disclosure and, if refused, apply to court under CPR 31.19✓ correct
   • C.Ignore the issue because the claimant cannot challenge a privilege claim without evidence
   • D.Request that the defendant provide further information about the document under CPR 18
   • E.Seek an order that the defendant's solicitor provide a witness statement explaining the privilege claim

   Why B is correct

   CPR 31.19(5) permits a party to apply to the court if they dispute a claim to withhold inspection of a document. The appropriate first step is to write to the opponent requesting voluntary production and explaining why the privilege claim is doubted (Practice Direction 31A para.4). If the defendant maintains the claim, the claimant may apply under CPR 31.19. Option A is premature without first asking the defendant. Option D is incorrect; CPR 18 concerns clarification of statements of case, not disclosure disputes. In Three Rivers DC v Bank of England (No.6) [2004] UKHL 48, the House of Lords confirmed that privilege claims can be challenged, but the correct procedural route is CPR 31.19.

5. Question 5

   A landlord brings possession proceedings against a tenant in the County Court. The hearing is listed for 2:00pm on 15 May. On the morning of 15 May, the tenant's solicitor emails the court and the landlord's solicitor stating that the tenant has been hospitalized overnight and cannot attend. The tenant's solicitor asks for an adjournment. The landlord's solicitor objects, stating that the tenant has had adequate notice. What approach is the court most likely to take?

   • A.Adjourn the hearing because a party has a right to attend hearings concerning possession of their home
   • B.Proceed with the hearing in the tenant's absence because adequate notice was given
   • C.Adjourn the hearing briefly to a date within the next few days, balancing the interests of both parties✓ correct
   • D.Proceed with the hearing but allow the tenant to apply to set aside any order made
   • E.Strike out the tenant's defence for non-attendance and grant possession immediately

   Why C is correct

   CPR 3.1(2)(b) gives the court discretion to adjourn a hearing. The overriding objective (CPR 1.1) requires the court to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost, balancing the parties' interests. In possession proceedings affecting a person's home, Article 8 ECHR is engaged, and fairness is paramount (Manchester City Council v Pinnock [2010] UKSC 45). However, the court will seek to avoid lengthy delays. A short adjournment balances the tenant's right to participate with the landlord's interest in timely resolution. Option A overstates the tenant's rights; there is no absolute right to attend, but the court will usually accommodate genuine emergencies. Option B undervalues procedural fairness in possession cases.