SQE1 Solicitors Exam Prep Exam Questions & Answers 2026 (21–30)

Q21In a high-value construction dispute worth £4.5 million, the claimant's solicitor advises the client on settlement tactics. The defendant has made a formal Part 36 offer of £3.2 million. The claimant's legal team assesses the likely judgment at trial as between £3.0 million and £3.8 million, with significant uncertainty due to complex expert evidence on defects and causation. The claimant's solicitor proposes making a Calderbank-style offer of £3.9 million marked "without prejudice save as to costs" rather than using the Part 36 procedure, arguing this preserves flexibility and avoids the automatic costs consequences of Part 36. The claimant is concerned about the costs risks of proceeding to trial, which are estimated at £450,000 for both parties combined. Which of the following best evaluates the solicitor's advice on using a Calderbank offer rather than Part 36?

• AThe advice is sound because in high-value commercial litigation, Calderbank offers are preferred as they provide stronger costs protection than Part 36 and allow the client to argue at the costs hearing that the offer should be given decisive weight in the exercise of the court's discretion.
• BThe advice is sound because Calderbank offers provide equivalent costs protection to Part 36 offers while allowing more flexibility in the terms offered, and courts routinely give them the same weight as Part 36 offers when considering costs at the conclusion of the case.
• CThe advice is sound because Calderbank offers avoid the risk of the client being locked into the automatic consequences of Part 36, and the court cannot take Calderbank offers into account unless both parties agree to waive the without prejudice protection at the costs hearing.
• DThe advice is questionable because Calderbank offers lack the automatic costs protection of Part 36 and rely on the court's discretion, which creates greater uncertainty for the client.

Q22A claimant is pursuing a multi-track claim worth £850,000 against three defendants for breach of contract and misrepresentation. Under the court's case management directions, costs budgets were required to be filed and exchanged 21 days before the first case management conference. The claimant filed their costs budget four days late, after the deadline had passed. The budget totals £285,000. At the case management conference, the defendants object to the late filing and argue that the claimant should be limited to recovering only court fees. The claimant's solicitor argues that the four-day delay was minimal, caused by counsel's illness, and that the defendants have not suffered prejudice as they received the budget before the hearing. The claimant's budget is not obviously disproportionate to the value and complexity of the claim. Which of the following best describes the court's likely approach?

• AThe court should accept the late budget without sanction because the four-day delay is de minimis, the explanation is reasonable, and case management directions regarding costs budgets are procedural guidelines rather than mandatory requirements in multi-track cases.
• BThe court must limit the claimant to recovering court fees only, as CPR 3.14 applies automatically to late filing and the court has no discretion to grant relief where the deadline was clearly stated in the case management directions and the breach is admitted.
• CThe court is likely to impose relief from sanctions if the claimant can demonstrate good reason for the delay, but may impose an adverse costs order for the late filing.
• DThe court should grant relief from sanctions without any adverse costs consequences because the defendants have failed to demonstrate any specific prejudice from the four-day delay, and under CPR the absence of prejudice to the other party is determinative when considering relief applications.

Q23A commercial client consults a solicitor about a potential claim against a former business partner for misappropriation of company funds totaling approximately £520,000. The alleged misappropriation occurred over a three-year period ending eight months ago. The client has identified key documents including bank statements and internal emails, but has not yet obtained witness statements from current employees who may have relevant knowledge. The client is very angry and wants to issue proceedings immediately. The solicitor's initial assessment suggests there is a reasonable prospect of success on liability, but the quantification of losses will require forensic accounting work that could take six to eight weeks. The costs of bringing the claim are estimated at £95,000 to trial. Which of the following best describes the solicitor's professional obligations at this pre-action stage?

• AThe solicitor should issue proceedings immediately as requested by the client, as the eight-month delay since the last misappropriation means limitation concerns override pre-action protocol requirements and the client's clear instructions take precedence over procedural considerations.
• BThe solicitor should advise the client to comply with the pre-action protocol, including sending a detailed letter of claim, considering ADR options, and obtaining forensic evidence before issuing proceedings.
• CThe solicitor should advise the client that pre-action protocols are voluntary best practice guidelines, and given the client's strong desire to proceed and the clear evidence of misappropriation, it is professionally acceptable to issue proceedings without sending a detailed letter of claim or considering ADR.
• DThe solicitor should advise that the claim cannot proceed until full forensic accounting has been completed and witness statements obtained, as issuing proceedings with incomplete evidence would breach the solicitor's duty not to mislead the court and would risk the claim being struck out as an abuse of process.

Q24A client consults a solicitor about a potential negligence claim against her former surveyor arising from a property purchase. The client purchased a residential property three years and nine months ago in reliance on the surveyor's report, which failed to identify serious structural defects. The defects were discovered two months ago when the client attempted to sell the property. The repairs are estimated at £78,000. The client immediately complained to the surveyor in writing, and the parties have exchanged correspondence for the past eight weeks. The surveyor's insurer has now indicated it will not settle without proceedings being issued. The limitation period for the claim is six years from the date of the report. The client is anxious to comply with pre-action requirements but also concerned about limitation. Which of the following best describes the solicitor's advice?

• AThe solicitor should advise that there is sufficient time to complete pre-action protocol steps before the limitation period expires, but should monitor the deadline and be prepared to issue protective proceedings if necessary.
• BThe solicitor should advise issuing proceedings immediately, as limitation concerns always override pre-action protocol requirements and the client risks being left without a remedy if the limitation period expires while the parties are still corresponding.
• CThe solicitor should advise that the eight weeks of correspondence with the surveyor constitute sufficient compliance with pre-action requirements, and proceedings should now be issued without further delay to protect the client's position given that less than three years remain before limitation.
• DThe solicitor should advise that limitation runs from the date of discovery of the defects rather than the date of the survey, giving the client five years and ten months from two months ago to issue proceedings, and therefore there is no need to consider limitation in deciding whether to comply with pre-action protocol steps.

Q25A technology company owns a warehouse adjacent to a residential property. The company plans to install industrial refrigeration units on the roof of the warehouse, which engineering reports indicate will generate continuous low-frequency noise likely to interfere with the neighbouring residents' sleep and use of their property. The installation is scheduled to begin in six weeks. The residents seek an injunction to prevent the installation before it occurs.

• AThe court will grant an interim injunction based solely on the balance of convenience, without requiring proof of the probability of future harm or inadequacy of damages.
• BA prohibitory injunction will be granted if the residents show the balance of convenience favours restraining the company's existing nuisance-causing activity.
• CAn injunction cannot be granted because no actionable wrong has yet occurred and the residents must wait until actual harm materialises before seeking relief.
• DA quia timet injunction may be granted if the residents demonstrate a strong probability of future actionable harm and that damages would be inadequate.

Q26In a personal injury claim valued by the claimant at £85,000, the defendant makes a Part 36 offer of £2,500 three weeks before trial. The claimant's solicitor advises that the defendant's liability is strong and the claimant's losses are well-documented at approximately £80,000. The claimant has already incurred £12,000 in legal costs. The claimant questions whether the defendant's offer constitutes a valid Part 36 offer with costs consequences.

• AAny offer that exceeds nominal damages constitutes a genuine attempt to settle and triggers Part 36 costs consequences if not accepted by the claimant.
• BThe offer is valid if it complies with formal requirements under CPR 36.5, regardless of the quantum offered relative to the claim value.
• CThe offer fails to constitute a genuine attempt to settle and may be disregarded by the court when considering costs.
• DThe offer is invalid because Part 36 offers must be made at least 21 days before the first day of trial to allow proper consideration by the receiving party.

Q27A solicitor is advising a client on a potential professional negligence claim against an accountant. The client has provided the solicitor with three witness statements and some correspondence but has not yet obtained key accounting records or expert evidence on the standard of care. The client is eager to proceed immediately with a letter of claim. In advising on the prospects of success, the solicitor tells the client that the case is 'very strong' and 'almost certain to succeed' based on the materials currently available.

• AThe solicitor's advice is acceptable provided the solicitor includes a caveat that the assessment may change once further evidence is obtained from the accountant.
• BThe solicitor has breached professional obligations by overstating case strength without sufficient evidence of key documents or witness reliability.
• CAdvising on case strength at the preliminary stage does not engage SRA obligations because formal proceedings have not yet been issued by either party.
• DThe solicitor's advice complies with professional standards because there is no requirement to obtain expert evidence before advising on prospects unless acting under a conditional fee arrangement.

Q28A firm is preparing for a final hearing in the County Court scheduled to be conducted remotely via video link. The court has ordered that trial bundles must be filed seven days before the hearing. The firm's paralegal prepares a PDF bundle of 340 pages and emails it to the court and opposing counsel six days before the hearing. On the morning of the hearing, the judge states that the bundle does not comply with the court's electronic bundle protocol because it lacks hyperlinks and bookmarks and exceeds the 300-page limit without prior permission.

• AThe firm has failed to comply with electronic bundle requirements, risking adjournment and costs sanctions.
• BThe firm has complied with the court's requirements because the bundle was provided in PDF format and sent to all parties before the hearing date.
• CThe firm is in compliance because the bundle was filed six days before the hearing, which satisfies the court's seven-day deadline when calculated in clear days.
• DThe judge's concerns are misplaced because electronic bundle requirements apply only to appellate courts and tribunals, not County Court hearings conducted remotely.

Q29In disclosure proceedings, a claimant company seeks documents relating to a construction dispute. The defendant is a holding company whose wholly-owned subsidiary carried out the construction work. The subsidiary's project manager, who now works for an unrelated company, possesses site diary records on his personal laptop. The defendant's finance director has access to the subsidiary's document management system and can retrieve contracts and invoices. The defendant contends it has no obligation to disclose the site diaries or subsidiary documents because it does not own them.

• AControl over documents is established only where the disclosing party has legal title or ownership rights in the documents, not merely the ability to obtain them.
• BThe defendant is not required to disclose documents unless they are in its physical possession or stored on servers it directly owns and operates.
• CDocuments held by a subsidiary company are not within the control of the parent company because subsidiaries are separate legal entities with independent document management obligations.
• DThe defendant has control over subsidiary documents and those from its former employee-agent and must disclose them.

Q30A claimant applies without notice for a freezing order against a defendant in a commercial fraud claim worth £2 million. The claimant's solicitor prepares detailed evidence showing the defendant has transferred funds to offshore accounts. However, the solicitor does not disclose to the court that the defendant's company previously obtained a county court judgment against the claimant for unpaid invoices worth £45,000, which remains outstanding. The freezing order is granted. Two weeks later, the defendant applies to discharge the order on the ground of material non-disclosure.

• AThe duty of full disclosure requires only that the applicant disclose facts directly relevant to the factual allegations in the fraud claim, not unrelated financial disputes between the parties.
• BThe court will maintain the freezing order because the outstanding judgment debt is not material to the question of whether the defendant is dissipating assets in the current fraud claim.
• CThe court is likely to discharge the freezing order because the claimant failed to disclose a material adverse fact.
• DThe appropriate remedy is for the court to continue the order but require the claimant to fortify the cross-undertaking in damages rather than discharge the order entirely.