Tort Law SQE1 practice questions
Tort in SQE1 means negligence and its defences, vicarious liability, occupiers' liability, product liability, nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. Its 2023/24 mean scaled score was 299, one below the pass mark, and questions often test the line between similar rules.
Updated 25 September 2026 · Checked against SRA sources listed below
SQE1 at a glance
- questions in each FLK
- 170
- per question on average
- 1.8 min
- out of 500 to pass each FLK
- 300
- passed SQE1 in January 2026
- 53%
Tort law · 8 questions, adaptive order
1 of 8
Question 1 · Vicarious liability · FLK1
A furniture retailer employs a man as a delivery driver. The retailer's written rules, which it enforces strictly, forbid drivers to reverse a lorry unless a colleague is guiding them. The man had been fully trained and had a clean driving record.
While making a delivery to a customer's house, the man reversed the retailer's lorry without a guide and hit a pedestrian, who was badly injured. The pedestrian was not a customer and had no dealings with the retailer. The retailer says that it was not at fault in any way.
Which of the following facts is most relevant to whether the retailer is liable for the man's negligence?
Question 2 · Nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher · FLK1
A man lives with his adult daughter in a house that she alone owns and holds legal title to. A neighbouring factory begins operating machinery that causes loud vibrations, damaging ornaments in the house and disturbing sleep. While the daughter is abroad on business, she asks her father to bring a claim in private nuisance against the factory in his own name, since he lives there and is equally affected.
Can the father bring a claim in private nuisance against the factory?
Question 3 · Nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher · FLK1
A factory next door to a residential property emitted heavy dust for several months due to a fault in its filtration system. The dust settled on the neighbouring homeowner's garden furniture, permanently staining it, and also made it unpleasant for her to sit in her garden during that period. The dust further aggravated the homeowner's pre-existing asthma, requiring her to take additional medication and see her GP twice. She sues the factory in private nuisance.
For which of these losses can the homeowner recover damages in private nuisance?
Question 4 · Negligence · FLK1
A claimant injured in a road accident caused by the defendant's negligence was unable to work for the 40 weeks before trial, losing net earnings of £600 per week. She also paid £1,200 for physiotherapy sessions in that period. Judgment was given for the claimant on liability, and the court is now assessing her special damages for the period up to trial. Assume the court awards interest on special damages at a rate the parties agree is appropriate.
Which of the following is correct about the claimant's recoverable special damages for the period up to trial?
Question 5 · Defences · FLK1
A pedestrian crossed a road away from the nearest crossing, without checking for traffic, and was struck by a car driven negligently by a driver travelling above the speed limit. The court found that had the pedestrian looked before crossing, she would have seen the car in time to avoid being hit.
Applying the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, what is the effect of the pedestrian's own conduct on her claim?
Question 6 · Occupiers' liability · FLK1
A customer slipped on a small amount of spilled yoghurt in an aisle of a supermarket and broke her wrist. The supermarket operated a system of aisle inspections every 20 minutes; the last inspection, six minutes before the accident, found no spillage. Standing signs reading 'Caution: wet floor' were displayed at every aisle entrance at all times, whether or not there was any actual spillage. The customer argues that, because she was injured on the supermarket's premises, the supermarket must automatically be liable.
Which of the following best describes the supermarket's potential liability to the customer under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957?
Question 7 · Negligence · FLK1
A cyclist was knocked from his bicycle by a negligently driven van. He landed awkwardly but, by good fortune, suffered no broken bones or physical injury at all. He was, however, badly shaken by the incident, and later developed a recognised psychiatric illness caused by the shock of the collision. At the moment of impact, physical injury to him had plainly been a foreseeable consequence of the van driver's negligence.
Can the cyclist recover damages for his psychiatric illness?
Question 8 · Product liability · FLK1
A defective industrial dishwasher used in a small restaurant kitchen malfunctions because of a manufacturing defect, causing an electrical fault that also destroys a nearby commercial food processor worth £3,000, used solely for the restaurant's catering business. The dishwasher itself, worth £1,200, is also destroyed. No one is injured. The restaurant seeks to recover both losses from the producer under the Consumer Protection Act 1987.
For which loss, if any, can the restaurant recover damages from the producer under the Consumer Protection Act 1987?
SQE1 at a glance
- questions in each FLK
- 170
- per question on average
- 1.8 min
- out of 500 to pass each FLK
- 300
- passed SQE1 in January 2026
- 53%
What Tort covers in SQE1
The SRA's assessment specification for assessments from 1 September 2026 lists these areas:
- Negligence: duty of care, the standard of care (general and professional) and breach, causation (single and multiple), remoteness and loss, remedies for personal injury and death, pure economic loss from negligent acts and misstatements, psychiatric harm, and employers' primary liability.
- Defences: consent (volenti non fit injuria), contributory negligence and illegality.
- Vicarious liability.
- Occupiers' liability: claims under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 for visitors and the 1984 Act for non-visitors, defences and exclusion of liability.
- Product liability: in negligence and under the Consumer Protection Act 1987.
- Nuisance: public and private nuisance, the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, and remedies and defences.
Trespass to the person and defamation are not on the list.
Where it sits in FLK1
Tort is examined in FLK1, in session 2 from January 2027, with Contract and the Legal System of England and Wales with Constitutional and Administrative Law and EU Law. Each session has 85 questions, grouped by subject and randomised within the session. In the SRA's 2019 blueprint Tort makes up 14 to 20 percent of FLK1.
Tort facts often reappear in session 1, where a Dispute Resolution question may ask about limitation or procedure for a negligence claim. Ethics can arise in any Tort question, for example when a solicitor acting on a claim finds a mistake of their own on the file. The law examined in January 2027 is the law in force on 11 September 2026.
Where candidates go wrong
In the SRA's annual report for 2023/24, Tort had a mean scaled score of 299, one point below the pass mark of 300. The traps that recur in our question bank are distinctions between rules that look alike.
- Who can sue in nuisance. A claim in private nuisance needs an interest in the affected land, so a family member living in the house usually cannot sue, and personal injury is not recoverable. Public nuisance has neither requirement, but the claimant must show special damage beyond that suffered by the public.
- Breach without causation. A defendant can fall below the standard of care and still escape liability if the harm would have happened anyway. Apply the but for test to the facts given, and keep the exceptions, such as the one for mesothelioma, to the cases they were made for.
- The standard of care. The standard is objective and set by the activity. A learner driver is judged as a competent driver, while a child defendant is judged by the standard of a reasonable child of the same age.
- Visitor or trespasser. Status depends on permission, and permission can be limited to part of the premises. Under the 1984 Act the occupier must know or have reasonable grounds to believe both that the danger exists and that someone may come near it.
- Vicarious liability in two stages. First the relationship: employment, or one akin to it. Then the close connection between the wrongdoing and what the person was engaged to do. An independent contractor carrying on its own business fails at the first stage.
Two further slips are common. Contributory negligence reduces damages by the claimant's share of responsibility, not the defendant's. Prescription for nuisance runs from when the activity began to affect the claimant's land, not from when it began.
How to revise Tort
Treat negligence as a sequence and use it on every problem: duty, breach, causation, remoteness, defences, then damages. The special duty areas, pure economic loss, psychiatric harm and employers' liability, are variations on the duty stage and are easier to learn once the sequence is fixed.
Learn the statutory torts from the statutes: who is an occupier and a visitor, what counts as a defect under the 1987 Act, who is a producer, and the exclusions for damage to the product itself and small property claims. Then learn nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher together, since they share claimants, defences and remedies.
Revise Tort alongside Contract, since the two share session 2 and several concepts with different tests. The guide on how to pass SQE1 sets out how subject learning turns into timed practice.
Questions candidates ask
Yes. Product liability is examined both in negligence and under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, which makes producers, own-branders and importers into the UK liable for damage caused by a defective product without proof of fault. A supplier is liable only if it fails to identify the producer or its own supplier when asked.
Yes. Tort includes public and private nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, with their remedies and defences. The SRA's specification uses Rylands v Fletcher as its example of a case name candidates are expected to know.
Yes. The Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 governs the duty owed to visitors and the 1984 Act the duty owed to people other than visitors, such as trespassers. Defences and the exclusion of liability are examined for both.
In negligence, loss is recoverable if damage of that type was reasonably foreseeable, following The Wagon Mound. In contract the test is what was within the reasonable contemplation of both parties when the contract was made, following Hadley v Baxendale, which is narrower.
Sources
- SRA: SQE1 Assessment Specification (assessments from 1 September 2026)Checked 23 September 2026
- SRA: SQE changes (September 2026)Checked 23 September 2026
- SRA: SQE1 Functioning Legal Knowledge assessment specification (August 2019), Annex 4 blueprintChecked 23 September 2026
- SRA: SQE Annual Report 2023/24Checked 23 September 2026
SQE1 Ready is independent of the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Rules, dates and fees can change: the SRA is the authority, and this page is checked against it.
Place Tort among all thirteen subjects
Tort shares FLK1 session 2 with Contract and the Legal System, and its 2023/24 mean score sat one point below the pass mark. The free diagnostic, 13 questions in about 15 minutes, gives a first read on every subject and shows whether Tort needs more time than its neighbours.
13 questions · about 15 minutes · free, no card details