## Question 1 In a contract dispute, a law firm acts for a company that has recently discovered additional emails that significantly weaken their client's position. The emails were inadvertently omitted from the initial disclosure due to an oversight. The law firm contemplates submitting these emails to the court and the opposing side but is concerned about the potential impact on their client's case. Considering the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) and principles of fair disclosure, which of the following actions should the law firm take regarding the newly discovered emails? - A. Withhold the emails to protect their client’s position, given they were not initially disclosed. - B. Disclose the emails immediately to the court and opposing side, irrespective of the impact. - C. Seek the client's instruction on whether to disclose the emails, prioritizing the client's interests. - D. Destroy the emails to ensure they cannot adversely affect their client's case. - E. Advise the client of the potential consequences of nondisclosure and recommend disclosing the emails.

Click to reveal answer

The correct answer is E. The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) mandate the duty of fair disclosure. Lawyers are required to act with integrity and not mislead the court. The law firm must inform their client of the consequences of withholding material evidence and recommend disclosure to comply with the rules and their ethical obligations. Option A is incorrect because withholding material evidence contravenes the duty of disclosure under the CPR and can lead to serious consequences, including sanctions against the client and solicitor. Option B is incorrect as while immediate disclosure aligns with the rules, the solicitor has a duty to advise the client about the implications and seek informed instructions. Option C is incorrect because, while client instructions are important, solicitors cannot act in a manner that is contrary to legal obligations, including fair disclosure, even if it aligns with the client's wishes. Option D is incorrect as destroying evidence is unethical, likely illegal, and would seriously breach the solicitor's duty to the court and their professional integrity.

## Question 2 In a complex dispute over a breached contract involving the procurement of specialized IT equipment for a large corporation, the parties are considering how best to approach the issue of technical evidence. The equipment in question was supposed to meet very specific operational standards, which the claimant argues have not been met, leading to significant operational disruptions. The defendant contests these claims, suggesting that any operational issues are due to the claimant's misuse. Given the highly technical nature of the dispute and the potential for considerable financial impact, the parties are advised to consider the use of expert evidence. Which of the following scenarios best supports the court's direction to appoint a single joint expert in this case? - A. If the technical standards claimed to be breached are open to wide interpretation and heavily contested. - B. If the IT equipment's functionality relies on cutting-edge technology that is not widely understood. - C. If the evidence required is technical but pertains to established standards within the IT industry. - D. If the claimant and defendant have vastly differing expert opinions already submitted in preliminary reports. - E. If organizing a meeting between the claimant's and defendant's separate experts is deemed too complex and costly.

Click to reveal answer

The correct answer is C. Appointing a single joint expert is most suitable when the necessary expert testimony involves technical aspects but is based on established standards within the industry, which can effectively streamline proceedings and minimize costs. Option A is incorrect because when technical standards are widely contested, it may be more appropriate for each party to have their own experts to fully present their case. Option B is incorrect because the use of cutting-edge technology not widely understood might require highly specialized experts from each side to articulate the specifics of their case. Option D is incorrect as the existing preliminary differing expert opinions highlight the need for each party potentially to provide detailed, individual expert testimonies to support their respective arguments effectively. Option E is incorrect as the complexity and cost of organizing meetings do not inherently justify the appointment of a single joint expert; the key is the nature and disputability of the technical evidence required.

## Question 3 A company is planning to implement a new IT system that could significantly impact the privacy of its customers. A group of concerned customers has approached a solicitor, fearing the potential misuse of their personal data once the new system is deployed. What is the most suitable initial advice the solicitor should provide to the concerned group in this context? - A. Advise the group to immediately initiate legal proceedings against the company for potential breach of data protection laws. - B. Recommend requesting a meeting with the company to discuss the IT system implementation plans and any data protection measures in place. - C. Suggest the group waits until the system is deployed and then file a complaint with the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) if their data is misused. - D. Recommend reporting the company to the ICO before the system is deployed to preempt potential data privacy issues. - E. Advise sending a formal letter to the company, demanding they halt the deployment until an independent audit of the data protection measures is conducted.

Click to reveal answer

The correct answer is B. This option is correct because it aligns with the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s guidance on exploring negotiation and dialogue, in this case involving data protection concerns, before taking more adversarial steps. It allows for a better understanding of the planned measures and expresses the group's concerns directly to the company. Option A is incorrect because it suggests skipping pre-action negotiations and alternative dispute resolution processes, which could potentially resolve the concerns without the need for litigation. Option C is incorrect because it advocates for a reactive approach, which may not be in the best interest of the concerned group or allow for mitigation of their concerns in a timely manner. Option D is incorrect because it suggests an escalation to regulatory intervention without first attempting to understand or resolve the issue directly with the company, missing an opportunity for dialogue. Option E is incorrect because it suggests a confrontational initial approach without first seeking to engage constructively with the company over their concerns, which is contrary to the principles of pre-action conduct.

## Question 4 A local business has entered into a contract with a supplier for the provision of goods. The supplier has now breached the terms of the contract, leading to significant losses for the business. The business is considering taking legal action and seeks advice on the most appropriate pre-action steps to take in line with the Practice Directions on pre-action conduct. Which of the following steps is least likely to be recommended as a pre-action step in this scenario? - A. Sending a detailed letter of claim to the supplier outlining the breach and the losses incurred. - B. Requesting an early neutral evaluation from a third party to assess the claim's strength. - C. Immediately commencing court proceedings without notifying the supplier. - D. Arranging a without prejudice meeting with the supplier to discuss potential settlement. - E. Calculating the limitation period for the contract claim to ensure timely action.

Click to reveal answer

The correct answer is C. Commencing court proceedings without first notifying the supplier is least likely to be recommended as it goes against the principles of pre-action conduct which encourage parties to communicate and potentially resolve disputes without the need for litigation. Option A is incorrect because sending a detailed letter of claim is a standard and often necessary step before initiating legal proceedings, as it provides the other party with an opportunity to understand the claim against them and possibly settle before going to court. Option B is incorrect because requesting an early neutral evaluation is a recognized pre-action step that can help all parties understand the potential strengths and weaknesses of their case, potentially leading to an early resolution. Option D is incorrect because arranging a without prejudice meeting is encouraged under the Practice Directions on pre-action conduct as a way to explore settlement options before resorting to litigation. Option E is incorrect because calculating the limitation period is a crucial step to ensure that any claim is made within the time limits set by law, preventing the claim from being statute-barred.

## Question 5 After successfully litigating a breach of contract case in the County Court, a technology company was awarded a judgment of £100,000 against a retailer who failed to pay for a bulk order of electronic devices. Despite the court's decision, the retailer has not made any payment towards the judgment debt. The technology company is exploring the most appropriate method to enforce the judgment and recover the owed amount. What is the most appropriate enforcement action for the technology company to take to seize the retailer's goods and recover the judgment debt? - A. Apply for a warrant of control in the County Court to authorize county court bailiffs to seize assets. - B. Transfer the judgment to the High Court and obtain a writ of control for enforcement by High Court Enforcement Officers. - C. Submit a request for an attachment of earnings order against the director of the retailer. - D. Seek a third-party debt order against a bank holding funds belonging to the retailer. - E. File for a charging order to secure the judgment debt against the retailer's commercial property.

Click to reveal answer

The correct answer is B. For a judgment debt of £100,000, the most appropriate method to seize goods is to transfer the judgment to the High Court and obtain a writ of control. Under the Courts Act 2003 and the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013, a warrant of control (County Court) is generally only available for debts up to £5,000 and must be used for debts under £600. For debts over £5,000, enforcement by writ of control in the High Court is generally required and is more effective as High Court Enforcement Officers typically have broader powers and higher recovery rates. Option A is incorrect because a warrant of control in the County Court is not available for enforcement of a judgment debt of this size. For debts exceeding £5,000, the judgment must be transferred to the High Court for enforcement by writ of control. Option C is incorrect as an attachment of earnings order is not applicable to company directors; it is designed for individual debtors with regular employment income and is not available against companies. Option D is incorrect because while a third-party debt order can be effective if the retailer has funds in a bank account, it does not involve seizing the retailer's goods as the question specifies. Option E is incorrect because a charging order secures the debt against property but does not result in immediate seizure of goods. It would require a subsequent order for sale to realize funds.

## Question 6 A company was awarded damages of £200,000 by the Court of Appeal after successfully appealing against an initial decision in a contractual dispute. The opposing party has refused to pay the awarded sum, prompting the company to explore options for compulsory enforcement. Which of the following methods of enforcement should the company consider to directly recover the financial sum awarded to them by the court? - A. Applying for an injunction to prevent further breaches of contract. - B. Requesting a court order for specific performance by the debtor. - C. Securing a charging order against the debtor's property. - D. Issuing a bankruptcy petition against the individual debtor. - E. Applying for a writ of possession to reclaim goods worth the debt value.

Click to reveal answer

The correct answer is C. The company should consider securing a charging order against the debtor's property as it directly allows for the recovery of the financial sum awarded by creating a legal charge over the debtor's assets, such as real estate, which can then be enforced to satisfy the debt. Option A is incorrect because an injunction is a preventive measure aimed at stopping an action from occurring, not a method of enforcing financial judgments. Option B is incorrect because a court order for specific performance pertains to the fulfillment of contractual obligations in the manner specified within the contract, not to the enforcement of financial awards. Option D is incorrect because issuing a bankruptcy petition is a means to declare the debtor bankrupt and may not directly recover the financial sum awarded; it is more appropriate in cases where the debtor is unable to pay their debts. Option E is incorrect because a writ of possession is used to regain possession of property, not to enforce a monetary judgment.

## Question 7 A company was notified that a competitor had initiated legal proceedings against them for alleged breach of contract. The company intended to contest the allegations vigorously. However, due to an administrative oversight, their response to the court's notice was not filed by the prescribed deadline. Consequently, they were informed that a default judgment was made in favour of the competitor. The company is keen on overturning this judgment so they can present their case. On what grounds can the company apply to have the default judgment set aside to enable them to defend the claim? - A. The company must agree to pay all legal costs incurred by the competitor before the court will consider the application. - B. The company must prove that the original court notice was not received due to postal service errors or delivery failures. - C. The company must demonstrate a credible defence to the claim or identify a significant procedural flaw in the judgment. - D. The company must file the application to set aside the default judgment within a strict 14-day period following the judgment. - E. The company must demonstrate that their failure to respond was due to force majeure or exceptional circumstances.

Click to reveal answer

The correct answer is C. The company must show evidence of a credible defence to the breach of contract claim or identify a significant procedural flaw in how the judgment was reached to satisfy the conditions for setting aside a default judgment under Rule 13. Option A is incorrect because merely agreeing to pay the legal costs of the competitor to date does not address the fundamental requirement under Rule 13 for setting aside a default judgment, which focuses on the presence of a substantial defence or procedural error. Option B is incorrect because while non-receipt of court notices may form part of a procedural error argument, it alone does not suffice for setting aside a default judgment under Rule 13. A credible defence or a more substantial procedural flaw must be demonstrated. Option D is incorrect because there is no arbitrary 14-day period specified under Rule 13 for the filing of an application to set aside a default judgment. The timing is subject to when the defendant becomes aware of the judgment and other considerations of fairness and justice. Option E is incorrect because force majeure, relating to uncontrollable external events preventing a party from fulfilling a contract, is not directly relevant to the criteria under Rule 13 for setting aside a default judgment. The emphasis is on a credible defence and identification of serious procedural errors.

## Question 8 A solicitor has been approached by a client on the 20th July. The client desires to make a claim against their former employer for wrongful dismissal. The solicitor calculates that the limitation period for bringing the claim will expire on the 15th August. Recognizing the tight timeframe and the need for prompt action to secure the client's legal rights, the solicitor considers the next steps meticulously. What is the most appropriate initial action for the solicitor to ensure the client's claim is preserved within the legal timeframe? - A. The solicitor should advise the client to negotiate directly with the former employer for an amicable settlement. - B. The solicitor should immediately issue a claim form to avoid any risk of missing the limitation period. - C. The solicitor should wait until the last week of the limitation period to issue the claim form, providing additional time to gather evidence. - D. The solicitor should apply for an immediate judgment in default because the former employer has not responded. - E. The solicitor should contact the former employer to informally resolve the dispute before issuing any legal proceedings.

Click to reveal answer

The correct answer is B. The solicitor should immediately issue a claim form to avoid any risk of missing the limitation period. This action ensures that the claim is filed within the legal timeframe, preserving the client's right to seek judicial resolution of the wrongful dismissal claim. Option A is incorrect because negotiating directly with the former employer, while potentially useful in some disputes, does not ensure that the legal claim is preserved within the limitation period, risking the client's ability to seek redress through the courts. Option C is incorrect because waiting until the last week of the limitation period is risky and does not allow for unforeseen delays or complications in filing the claim form, potentially resulting in missing the legal deadline. Option D is incorrect because an immediate judgment in default is not relevant or possible at this stage, as the claim has not yet been issued or served on the former employer. Option E is incorrect because while contacting the former employer to resolve disputes informally can be a valuable step, it should not delay the timely issuance of the claim form, especially when the limitation period is nearing its end.

## Question 9 During a high-profile breach of contract dispute between two companies, both entities agree to engage in early neutral evaluation to resolve their differences. Afterwards, they present to the court a summary of their settlement, bypassing the standard preliminary hearings. However, the court is concerned that the settlement may not fully address the rights of minor stakeholders not present during the negotiation. What action is the court most likely to take regarding the settlement agreement between the two companies? - A. Endorse the settlement as is, respecting the autonomy of the disputing corporations. - B. Request additional information from independent audits to ensure fairness to all parties. - C. Refer the settlement back to mediation for further consideration of minor stakeholders' rights. - D. Examine the terms of the settlement and may require adjustments to better protect minor stakeholders. - E. Dismiss the agreement outright and proceed to a full trial to ensure justice is served.

Click to reveal answer

The correct answer is D. The court has a responsibility to ensure that all settlements and agreements serve the interests of justice, including the protection of all parties involved, especially those not present during negotiations such as minor stakeholders. Therefore, if a settlement overlooks the rights of these stakeholders, the court is inclined to review and possibly mandate alterations to the agreement. Option A is incorrect because simply endorsing the settlement without consideration for all stakeholders might not align with the principles of fair justice and the court's overriding objective to ensure that justice is done. Option B is incorrect as requesting audits is not the standard approach for addressing concerns about the protection of stakeholders' rights within a settlement. The court's decision-making is more directly concerned with the terms of the agreement itself. Option C is incorrect because while referral back to mediation is a potential course of action, it is more direct and efficient for the court to examine and, if necessary, mandate adjustments to the settlement to protect minor stakeholders. Option E is incorrect because dismissing the agreement outright is an excessive measure when the court can instead require modifications to ensure the agreement is just and equitable.

## Question 10 A firm has won a significant case for their client, resulting in a substantial financial award. However, the defendant has failed to make any payments towards the award. The firm is considering the next steps to ensure their client receives payment. The client's legal team is aware that the defendant owns valuable machinery and equipment, which could be seized to satisfy the judgment debt. What is the first step the legal team should take to enforce the judgment through the seizure of the defendant's machinery and equipment? - A. Apply for a charging order against the defendant’s property. - B. Issue a bankruptcy petition against the defendant. - C. Request the court to issue a writ of possession. - D. Request the court for a writ of control. - E. Submit an application for a third party debt order.

Click to reveal answer

The correct answer is D. Requesting the court for a writ of control is the first step the legal team should take to enforce the judgment through the seizure of the defendant's machinery and equipment. A writ of control authorizes High Court Enforcement Officers to seize and sell the debtor's goods to satisfy the judgment debt. Option A is incorrect because a charging order is a method used to secure a judgment debt against the debtor’s property, rather than directly seizing assets to satisfy the debt. Option B is incorrect because issuing a bankruptcy petition is a process initiated when a debtor is unable to pay their debts, not a direct method for seizing assets. Option C is incorrect because a writ of possession is primarily used to recover possession of land or property, not for enforcing money judgments through the seizure of goods. Option E is incorrect because a third party debt order targets debts owed to the judgment debtor by someone else, rather than allowing for the seizure of the debtor’s own assets.

SQE1 FLK1 Dispute Resolution Sample Questions July 2024