SQE1 · FLK1
Tort
Negligence, nuisance, defamation, vicarious liability.
Duty, breach, causation, defences, occupiers' liability, product liability, nuisance and vicarious liability.
Tort in SQE1 FLK1
Tort in FLK1 is dominated by negligence, worked element by element, with the specialised torts (occupiers', product, nuisance, vicarious liability) layered on top. The marks reward a disciplined duty → breach → causation → damage → defences structure.
What’s tested
- Negligence: duty of care, the Caparo framework, breach (the reasonable person and the Bolam/Bolitho standard), and the standard of care
- Causation: factual causation (the 'but for' test) and legal causation / remoteness
- Pure economic loss and psychiatric harm as restricted duty categories
- Occupiers' liability under the Occupiers' Liability Acts 1957 and 1984
- Product liability under the Consumer Protection Act 1987
- Employers' liability and vicarious liability (the 'close connection' test)
- Private and public nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher
- Defences: contributory negligence, consent and illegality; remedies and limitation
Leading cases to know
- Donoghue v Stevenson — the neighbour principle and the modern duty of care
- Caparo Industries v Dickman — foreseeability, proximity and fair, just and reasonable
- The Wagon Mound (No 1) — remoteness and reasonable foreseeability of damage
- Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society — the modern test for vicarious liability
Key statutes and rules
- Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 — the duty to lawful visitors
- Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 — the limited duty to trespassers
- Consumer Protection Act 1987 — strict liability for defective products
- Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 — apportionment for contributory fault
Common SBAQ traps
- Jumping to breach without first establishing that a duty of care is owed in the situation
- Confusing the 1957 Act (lawful visitors) with the 1984 Act (trespassers)
- Treating vicarious liability as automatic for any employee wrongdoing, ignoring the 'close connection' test
How to revise Tort for FLK1
Always run the full negligence skeleton even when a question looks like it tests only one element — the SRA hides the decisive issue mid-chain. Learn the specialised torts as discrete checklists, and keep the duty cases (Donoghue, Caparo) ready to apply to novel facts.
Go deeper
Free revision notes — Tort
Tort in FLK1 is dominated by negligence, which typically accounts for more than half the tort questions. The duty–breach–causation–remoteness–defences framework must be automatic. Occupiers' liability, nuisance, product liability, and vicarious liability appear in smaller proportions.
Duty of care and breach
Established categories (employer/employee, occupier/visitor, manufacturer/consumer from Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]) are the starting point after Robinson v CCWY [2018]. For novel situations, Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990]: foreseeability, proximity, fair/just/reasonable. Breach is objective: would a reasonable person in the defendant's position have acted differently? Bolton v Stone [1951] (probability × magnitude, balanced against cost of precautions). Professionals: Bolam/Bolitho standard. The res ipsa loquitur doctrine shifts the evidential burden where the facts speak for themselves.
Causation and remoteness
Factual causation: but-for test (Barnett v Chelsea [1969]). Multiple causes: material contribution to risk (Fairchild v Glenhaven [2002] — mesothelioma exception). Consecutive causes: the thin skull rule (Smith v Leech Brain [1962]) means the defendant takes the victim as found. Remoteness: the type of harm must be foreseeable (Wagon Mound No 1 [1961]). Novus actus interveniens: only breaks the chain if free, deliberate, and informed, or if unreasonably risky.
Defences and remedies
Contributory negligence (Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945): apportionment by percentage. Volenti non fit injuria: must show claimant consented to the specific risk that materialised — high threshold, especially post-Nettleship v Weston [1971]. Illegality (ex turpi causa): defence where the claimant's own crime caused the damage — Patel v Mirza [2016] sets out the balancing test. Damages: compensatory (PSLA, future loss of earnings, care costs). Contributory negligence reduces but does not extinguish the claim.
Occupiers' liability and vicarious liability
Occupiers' Liability Act 1957: duty to take reasonable care for the safety of lawful visitors (common duty of care). OLA 1984: duty to trespassers where occupier is aware of the danger and risk, and the danger is one against which reasonable protection might be expected. Vicarious liability: employer liable for employee's torts in the course of employment (Lister v Hesley Hall [2002] — close connection test). Independent contractors: generally not vicariously liable unless the work is inherently dangerous or the contractor is effectively integrated into the business. The Catholic Child Welfare Society v Various Claimants [2012] extended vicarious liability to akin-to-employment relationships.
Common pitfalls
- Applying the Caparo three-stage test to established categories — Robinson confirmed that Caparo only applies in genuinely novel situations.
- Forgetting the thin skull rule: once some physical injury is foreseeable, the full extent of the claimant's loss is recoverable even if exceptional.
- Confusing volenti (full defence — complete consent to the risk) with contributory negligence (partial defence — contribution to the damage).
- Misapplying the course-of-employment test: an employee on a frolic of their own takes the employer outside vicarious liability, but minor deviations do not.
Exam tip
For any negligence question, draw the DBCRD checklist: Duty, Breach, Causation, Remoteness, Defences. Address each in turn before considering remedies.
Bank size: 85 questions. We grow the bank weekly.
Tort — frequently asked questions
What's tested in SQE1 Tort?
Tort (FLK1) covers negligence (duty of care, breach, causation in fact and law, remoteness and defences), occupiers' liability under the 1957 and 1984 Acts, product liability under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, employers' liability and vicarious liability, private and public nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, and the available remedies and limitation periods.
How is duty of care tested in SQE1?
You apply the established duty framework — the Caparo v Dickman criteria of foreseeability, proximity and whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty — to novel scenarios, alongside settled duty situations and the rules on pure economic loss and psychiatric harm.
Is SQE1 Tort multiple choice?
Yes. Like the rest of SQE1, Tort is assessed through single-best-answer questions: a client-based scenario followed by five options (A–E) from which you pick the single best answer. There is no negative marking, so it is always worth attempting every question.