u/Terrible_Scientist96

With FLK1 a week today, the "what are my odds" question comes up a lot, and the numbers are scattered across years of SRA notices. So I compiled every sitting since the exam began and checked each figure against the SRA's own results publications. Sharing here in full:

Sitting | Overall | First-attempt | Candidates

Nov 2021 | 53% | 53% | 1,073

Jul 2022 | 53% | 55% | 1,829

Jan 2023 | 51% | 54% | 3,031

Jul 2023 | 53% | 56% | 3,475

Jan 2024 | 56% | 59% | 6,061

Jul 2024 | 44% | 48% | 5,006

Jan 2025 | 56% | 60% | 6,782

Jul 2025 | 41% | 46% | 5,851 (record low)

Jan 2026 | 53% | 58% | 7,863

(Overall = passed both FLK1 and FLK2. Nov 2021 first-attempt equals overall because everyone at the inaugural sitting was first-attempt.)

Three things worth knowing before you sit:

1. July runs lower than January, every time (44% and 41% vs 56% and 56% in the last two years). Partly the resit mix, partly the cohort. If you're sitting next week, expect the headline number to look scary in September — it says less about you than it seems.

2. Across all attempts, about two-thirds of candidates eventually pass — roughly 54% first time, another 10% on the second go, 2% on the third (SRA, "The SQE four years on"). One bad sitting is not the end of the road, though resits cost the full fee and you get three attempts in six years.

3. There's no fixed pass mark. It's standard-set per sitting, recently landing around 56-60%. You can't aim at a number in advance — you can only be solid across the breadth.

All sitting-by-sitting source links (SRA notices and the official statistical reports), plus the data as a downloadable CSV if anyone wants it for their own analysis:

https://lawdojo.co.uk/sqe1-pass-rate

Good luck to everyone sitting next week. The number that matters isn't in this table — it's your accuracy across the syllabus this week.

With FLK1 a week today, the "what are my odds" question comes up a lot, and the numbers are scattered across years of SRA notices. So I compiled every sitting since the exam began and checked each figure against the SRA's own results publications. Sharing here in full:

Sitting | Overall | First-attempt | Candidates

Nov 2021 | 53% | 53% | 1,073

Jul 2022 | 53% | 55% | 1,829

Jan 2023 | 51% | 54% | 3,031

Jul 2023 | 53% | 56% | 3,475

Jan 2024 | 56% | 59% | 6,061

Jul 2024 | 44% | 48% | 5,006

Jan 2025 | 56% | 60% | 6,782

Jul 2025 | 41% | 46% | 5,851 (record low)

Jan 2026 | 53% | 58% | 7,863

(Overall = passed both FLK1 and FLK2. Nov 2021 first-attempt equals overall because everyone at the inaugural sitting was first-attempt.)

Three things worth knowing before you sit:

1. July runs lower than January, every time (44% and 41% vs 56% and 56% in the last two years). Partly the resit mix, partly the cohort. If you're sitting next week, expect the headline number to look scary in September — it says less about you than it seems.

2. Across all attempts, about two-thirds of candidates eventually pass — roughly 54% first time, another 10% on the second go, 2% on the third (SRA, "The SQE four years on"). One bad sitting is not the end of the road, though resits cost the full fee and you get three attempts in six years.

3. There's no fixed pass mark. It's standard-set per sitting, recently landing around 56-60%. You can't aim at a number in advance — you can only be solid across the breadth.

All sitting-by-sitting source links (SRA notices and the official statistical reports), plus the data as a downloadable CSV if anyone wants it for their own analysis:

https://lawdojo.co.uk/sqe1-pass-rate

Good luck to everyone sitting next week. The number that matters isn't in this table — it's your accuracy across the syllabus this week.

A company has gone into liquidation. After realising the assets, the liquidator holds funds and must distribute them. The estate includes assets that were subject to a qualifying floating charge granted to the company's bank, as well as other free assets. There are unpaid employee wage claims that rank as preferential, the liquidator's own fees and expenses, and a large body of ordinary unsecured trade creditors. The bank's floating charge was created after the relevant statutory reforms came into force. The liquidator asks, as a matter of the statutory order, which class is paid first out of the assets available for distribution.

Which of the following best states the position?

A) The ordinary unsecured creditors, because they are the largest group and the legislation favours rateable distribution.

B) The prescribed part, which is set aside for the floating-charge holder before anyone else.

C) The expenses of the winding up, which rank ahead of preferential creditors and floating-charge realisations.

D) The preferential creditors, who must always be paid before the costs and expenses of the liquidation.

E) The holder of the floating charge, in priority to everyone else including the liquidator's expenses.

Drop your answer below. Worked solution + a tutor that knows this exact question is on the question page:

https://lawdojo.co.uk/q/FLK1-BLP-G-106

A company has gone into liquidation. After realising the assets, the liquidator holds funds and must distribute them. The estate includes assets that were subject to a qualifying floating charge granted to the company's bank, as well as other free assets. There are unpaid employee wage claims that rank as preferential, the liquidator's own fees and expenses, and a large body of ordinary unsecured trade creditors. The bank's floating charge was created after the relevant statutory reforms came into force. The liquidator asks, as a matter of the statutory order, which class is paid first out of the assets available for distribution.

Which of the following best states the position?

A) The ordinary unsecured creditors, because they are the largest group and the legislation favours rateable distribution.

B) The prescribed part, which is set aside for the floating-charge holder before anyone else.

C) The expenses of the winding up, which rank ahead of preferential creditors and floating-charge realisations.

D) The preferential creditors, who must always be paid before the costs and expenses of the liquidation.

E) The holder of the floating charge, in priority to everyone else including the liquidator's expenses.

Drop your answer below. Worked solution + a tutor that knows this exact question is on the question page:

https://lawdojo.co.uk/q/FLK1-BLP-G-106

If you're sitting FLK1 on the 13th, the final week is consolidation week, and it's easy to waste it. What I'd do:

1. No new topics after Wednesday. A half-learned area picked up the night before costs more marks than it gains.

2. Drill by weight, not by fear. On FLK1 the heavyweight areas are Business and Dispute Resolution — an hour there buys more marks than an hour on the topic that happens to scare you.

3. Timed questions every day. The paper runs at roughly 1m42s per question, and pace is what catches people — you can know the law and still run out of road. At least one timed 25-question block a day.

4. Review your wrong answers the same day, and keep a one-line note of the rule you missed. The mark you lose twice is the expensive one.

5. Day before: light retrieval only, logistics sorted (ID, route to the test centre), early night. Nobody ever passed off the back of a 2am cram.

If you want a timed block at real exam pace: the free diagnostic here is 25 questions at 1m42s each, worked answers with the authority cited, no card needed.

https://lawdojo.co.uk/free-mock

Good luck to everyone sitting next week.

If you're sitting FLK1 on the 13th, the final week is consolidation week, and it's easy to waste it. What I'd do:

1. No new topics after Wednesday. A half-learned area picked up the night before costs more marks than it gains.

2. Drill by weight, not by fear. On FLK1 the heavyweight areas are Business and Dispute Resolution — an hour there buys more marks than an hour on the topic that happens to scare you.

3. Timed questions every day. The paper runs at roughly 1m42s per question, and pace is what catches people — you can know the law and still run out of road. At least one timed 25-question block a day.

4. Review your wrong answers the same day, and keep a one-line note of the rule you missed. The mark you lose twice is the expensive one.

5. Day before: light retrieval only, logistics sorted (ID, route to the test centre), early night. Nobody ever passed off the back of a 2am cram.

If you want a timed block at real exam pace: the free diagnostic here is 25 questions at 1m42s each, worked answers with the authority cited, no card needed.

https://lawdojo.co.uk/free-mock

Good luck to everyone sitting next week.

A profitable engineering company borrowed £4 million from its bank in 2001, secured by a debenture creating a fixed charge over the company's premises and a qualifying floating charge over all its other assets. The debenture was duly registered at the time. The company has now defaulted on the loan and the bank wants to take control of the charged assets, sell them and apply the proceeds to its secured debt, without going through a court winding-up petition and without having to act in the interests of the company's creditors generally. The bank's solicitor notes the date the floating charge was created. The bank asks what enforcement route is open to it on these facts.

Which of the following best states the position?

A) The bank may appoint an administrative receiver, because its qualifying floating charge was created before 15 September 2003 and so falls within an exception to the general prohibition on appointing administrative receivers.

B) The bank may appoint an administrative receiver regardless of the date of the charge, because administrative receivership was never abolished for any floating charge.

C) The bank cannot enforce by appointing anyone; since the Enterprise Act 2002 a floating-charge holder may only petition for compulsory liquidation.

D) The bank may only appoint a Law of Property Act receiver over the company's land, and has no remedy in respect of the floating-charge assets.

E) The bank must appoint an administrator, who will act for all the company's creditors as a whole and cannot give the bank priority over them.

Drop your answer below. Worked solution + a tutor that knows this exact question is on the question page:

https://lawdojo.co.uk/q/TU-BLP11-1

A profitable engineering company borrowed £4 million from its bank in 2001, secured by a debenture creating a fixed charge over the company's premises and a qualifying floating charge over all its other assets. The debenture was duly registered at the time. The company has now defaulted on the loan and the bank wants to take control of the charged assets, sell them and apply the proceeds to its secured debt, without going through a court winding-up petition and without having to act in the interests of the company's creditors generally. The bank's solicitor notes the date the floating charge was created. The bank asks what enforcement route is open to it on these facts.

Which of the following best states the position?

A) The bank may appoint an administrative receiver, because its qualifying floating charge was created before 15 September 2003 and so falls within an exception to the general prohibition on appointing administrative receivers.

B) The bank may appoint an administrative receiver regardless of the date of the charge, because administrative receivership was never abolished for any floating charge.

C) The bank cannot enforce by appointing anyone; since the Enterprise Act 2002 a floating-charge holder may only petition for compulsory liquidation.

D) The bank may only appoint a Law of Property Act receiver over the company's land, and has no remedy in respect of the floating-charge assets.

E) The bank must appoint an administrator, who will act for all the company's creditors as a whole and cannot give the bank priority over them.

Drop your answer below. Worked solution + a tutor that knows this exact question is on the question page:

https://lawdojo.co.uk/q/TU-BLP11-1

A client owns 4% of the ordinary shares in a trading company and has been a part-time employee of it for three years. The company carries on a genuine trade and is not a personal investment vehicle. In July 2026 she sells all of her shares, realising a substantial chargeable gain. She has held the shares and the employment throughout the three-year period. She asks whether her gain will qualify for Business Asset Disposal Relief so that it is taxed at the reduced rate.

Which of the following best explains the position?

A) The relief is available, but only on 4% of the gain, proportionate to her shareholding.

B) The relief is not available, because she does not hold at least 5% of the ordinary share capital and voting rights.

C) The relief is available, because the company is a trading company and that is the only requirement.

D) The relief is available, because she has been an employee and held the shares for more than two years.

E) The relief is not available, because shares in a company can never qualify for Business Asset Disposal Relief.

Drop your answer below. Worked solution + a tutor that knows this exact question is on the question page:

https://lawdojo.co.uk/q/FLK1-BLP-G-132

A client owns 4% of the ordinary shares in a trading company and has been a part-time employee of it for three years. The company carries on a genuine trade and is not a personal investment vehicle. In July 2026 she sells all of her shares, realising a substantial chargeable gain. She has held the shares and the employment throughout the three-year period. She asks whether her gain will qualify for Business Asset Disposal Relief so that it is taxed at the reduced rate.

Which of the following best explains the position?

A) The relief is available, but only on 4% of the gain, proportionate to her shareholding.

B) The relief is not available, because she does not hold at least 5% of the ordinary share capital and voting rights.

C) The relief is available, because the company is a trading company and that is the only requirement.

D) The relief is available, because she has been an employee and held the shares for more than two years.

E) The relief is not available, because shares in a company can never qualify for Business Asset Disposal Relief.

Drop your answer below. Worked solution + a tutor that knows this exact question is on the question page:

https://lawdojo.co.uk/q/FLK1-BLP-G-132

A director of a company that is seeking a major new client is offered, by a third party hoping to influence the award of a sub-contract, the free use of a luxury holiday villa for two weeks. The third party makes clear that the gift is provided because of the director's position and his ability to steer the company's choice of sub-contractor. The villa has a market rental value of several thousand pounds. The director accepts the use of the villa and does not disclose it. He later says the gift was a personal kindness and unconnected with his duties.

Which of the following best states the position?

A) He has breached the duty not to accept benefits from third parties.

B) He has breached no duty provided the acceptance could not reasonably be regarded as likely to give rise to a conflict of interest.

C) He has breached no duty because the villa was a personal gift and not a payment of money.

D) He has breached the duty to declare an interest in a proposed transaction under s.177.

E) He has breached the duty only if the company actually awards the sub-contract to the third party.

Drop your answer below. Worked solution + a tutor that knows this exact question is on the question page:

https://lawdojo.co.uk/q/FLK1-BLP-G-47

A director of a company that is seeking a major new client is offered, by a third party hoping to influence the award of a sub-contract, the free use of a luxury holiday villa for two weeks. The third party makes clear that the gift is provided because of the director's position and his ability to steer the company's choice of sub-contractor. The villa has a market rental value of several thousand pounds. The director accepts the use of the villa and does not disclose it. He later says the gift was a personal kindness and unconnected with his duties.

Which of the following best states the position?

A) He has breached the duty not to accept benefits from third parties.

B) He has breached no duty provided the acceptance could not reasonably be regarded as likely to give rise to a conflict of interest.

C) He has breached no duty because the villa was a personal gift and not a payment of money.

D) He has breached the duty to declare an interest in a proposed transaction under s.177.

E) He has breached the duty only if the company actually awards the sub-contract to the third party.

Drop your answer below. Worked solution + a tutor that knows this exact question is on the question page:

https://lawdojo.co.uk/q/FLK1-BLP-G-47

A company's articles contain an article appointing a named member, Priya, as the company's solicitor 'for as long as she remains a member', and providing that the company shall instruct her on all its legal work. Some years later the company instructs a different firm. Priya, who is still a member, sues the company relying on the article, claiming the company is in breach of contract by not instructing her. She points out that the article is part of the registered articles and so forms part of the s.33 statutory contract that binds the company.

Will Priya's claim succeed?

A) Yes, because every provision in the registered articles is enforceable by a member under the s.33 statutory contract.

B) Yes, but only if Priya can show she gave separate consideration beyond becoming a member.

C) Yes, because the article was included in the original articles and Priya has continuously been a member throughout.

D) No, because articles can never create enforceable contractual rights of any kind for individual members.

E) No, because the article purports to confer a right on Priya in a capacity other than that of member, so it is not enforceable under s.33.

Drop your answer below. Worked solution + a tutor that knows this exact question is on the question page:

https://lawdojo.co.uk/q/FLK1-BLP-G-25

A company's articles contain an article appointing a named member, Priya, as the company's solicitor 'for as long as she remains a member', and providing that the company shall instruct her on all its legal work. Some years later the company instructs a different firm. Priya, who is still a member, sues the company relying on the article, claiming the company is in breach of contract by not instructing her. She points out that the article is part of the registered articles and so forms part of the s.33 statutory contract that binds the company.

Will Priya's claim succeed?

A) Yes, because every provision in the registered articles is enforceable by a member under the s.33 statutory contract.

B) Yes, but only if Priya can show she gave separate consideration beyond becoming a member.

C) Yes, because the article was included in the original articles and Priya has continuously been a member throughout.

D) No, because articles can never create enforceable contractual rights of any kind for individual members.

E) No, because the article purports to confer a right on Priya in a capacity other than that of member, so it is not enforceable under s.33.

Drop your answer below. Worked solution + a tutor that knows this exact question is on the question page:

https://lawdojo.co.uk/q/FLK1-BLP-G-25

A woman is the treasurer of a small amateur football club. Members pay £20 each month in cash, which the woman is instructed by the club's rules to bank into the club's dedicated account within seven days. One month she receives £200 in subscriptions but, being short of money, uses the cash to pay her own gas bill. She intends to replace the £200 from her wages before anyone notices, and she does in fact pay an equivalent £200 into the club account two weeks later.

The woman is charged with theft of the £200.

Which of the following is the strongest basis for finding the property belonged to another at the time she used it?

A) She was under an obligation to deal with the specific proceeds in a particular way, so the property is treated as belonging to the club under s.5(3).

B) Property belonged to another only once the seven-day banking deadline had passed.

C) There can be no theft because she intended to and did replace an equivalent sum.

D) The cash never belonged to her because she was only a treasurer.

E) The club retained legal ownership of the actual banknotes she received from members.

Drop your answer below. Worked solution + a tutor that knows this exact question is on the question page:

https://lawdojo.co.uk/q/FLK2-CRL-G-43

A woman is the treasurer of a small amateur football club. Members pay £20 each month in cash, which the woman is instructed by the club's rules to bank into the club's dedicated account within seven days. One month she receives £200 in subscriptions but, being short of money, uses the cash to pay her own gas bill. She intends to replace the £200 from her wages before anyone notices, and she does in fact pay an equivalent £200 into the club account two weeks later.

The woman is charged with theft of the £200.

Which of the following is the strongest basis for finding the property belonged to another at the time she used it?

A) She was under an obligation to deal with the specific proceeds in a particular way, so the property is treated as belonging to the club under s.5(3).

B) Property belonged to another only once the seven-day banking deadline had passed.

C) There can be no theft because she intended to and did replace an equivalent sum.

D) The cash never belonged to her because she was only a treasurer.

E) The club retained legal ownership of the actual banknotes she received from members.

Drop your answer below. Worked solution + a tutor that knows this exact question is on the question page:

https://lawdojo.co.uk/q/FLK2-CRL-G-43

A limited liability partnership and an ordinary partnership governed by the Partnership Act 1890 each have three members/partners. In each firm, one of the members/partners, while acting in the ordinary course of the firm's business and with apparent authority, negligently gives advice to a client which causes the client significant loss. In each case the firm itself is liable to the client. A trainee is asked to compare the position of the other two members of the LLP with the position of the other two partners of the ordinary partnership, in respect of that liability to the client.

Which of the following best states the comparison?

A) In neither firm are the other members/partners personally liable, because in each case only the individual who gave the advice is liable.

B) In the LLP the other members are personally liable up to their capital contributions, whereas in the ordinary partnership the other partners have no personal liability.

C) In both firms the other members/partners are personally jointly liable to the client for the loss.

D) In the LLP the other members are personally liable but the LLP must be sued first, whereas in the ordinary partnership the other partners are not personally liable at all.

E) In the LLP the other members are not personally liable for the firm's liability, whereas in the ordinary partnership the other partners are personally jointly liable for it.

Drop your answer below. Worked solution + a tutor that knows this exact question is on the question page:

https://lawdojo.co.uk/q/FLK1-BLP-G-88

A limited liability partnership and an ordinary partnership governed by the Partnership Act 1890 each have three members/partners. In each firm, one of the members/partners, while acting in the ordinary course of the firm's business and with apparent authority, negligently gives advice to a client which causes the client significant loss. In each case the firm itself is liable to the client. A trainee is asked to compare the position of the other two members of the LLP with the position of the other two partners of the ordinary partnership, in respect of that liability to the client.

Which of the following best states the comparison?

A) In neither firm are the other members/partners personally liable, because in each case only the individual who gave the advice is liable.

B) In the LLP the other members are personally liable up to their capital contributions, whereas in the ordinary partnership the other partners have no personal liability.

C) In both firms the other members/partners are personally jointly liable to the client for the loss.

D) In the LLP the other members are personally liable but the LLP must be sued first, whereas in the ordinary partnership the other partners are not personally liable at all.

E) In the LLP the other members are not personally liable for the firm's liability, whereas in the ordinary partnership the other partners are personally jointly liable for it.

Drop your answer below. Worked solution + a tutor that knows this exact question is on the question page:

https://lawdojo.co.uk/q/FLK1-BLP-G-88

An accountancy firm advises a new client who provides private healthcare services that are exempt supplies for VAT purposes. In its first year the client expects taxable turnover of nil and exempt turnover of £400,000. The client buys office equipment and pays VAT of £8,000 on those purchases. The client's owner asks whether the business must register for VAT and whether it can recover the £8,000 of VAT it has paid.

Which of the following best states the position?

A) The business must register, but it cannot recover the £8,000 because the supplies are exempt.

B) The business is not required to register, but it can still recover the £8,000 as input tax.

C) The business is not required to register, and it cannot recover the £8,000 as input tax.

D) The business must register because its turnover exceeds £90,000, and it can then recover the £8,000 input tax.

E) The business must register because all turnover above £90,000 triggers registration, whether taxable or exempt.

Drop your answer below. Worked solution + a tutor that knows this exact question is on the question page:

https://lawdojo.co.uk/q/FLK1-BLP-G-150

An accountancy firm advises a new client who provides private healthcare services that are exempt supplies for VAT purposes. In its first year the client expects taxable turnover of nil and exempt turnover of £400,000. The client buys office equipment and pays VAT of £8,000 on those purchases. The client's owner asks whether the business must register for VAT and whether it can recover the £8,000 of VAT it has paid.

Which of the following best states the position?

A) The business must register, but it cannot recover the £8,000 because the supplies are exempt.

B) The business is not required to register, but it can still recover the £8,000 as input tax.

C) The business is not required to register, and it cannot recover the £8,000 as input tax.

D) The business must register because its turnover exceeds £90,000, and it can then recover the £8,000 input tax.

E) The business must register because all turnover above £90,000 triggers registration, whether taxable or exempt.

Drop your answer below. Worked solution + a tutor that knows this exact question is on the question page:

https://lawdojo.co.uk/q/FLK1-BLP-G-150