Dispute Resolution is the densest memorisation block in FLK1, and most candidates respond by drilling the deadlines. That is necessary but not sufficient. The deadlines are the easy marks — they are bright lines, and a card either fires or it does not.
What actually separates candidates is the choices: which application, which track, which consequence follows. Those questions look like knowledge questions and are really discrimination questions.
This post is about those. The numbers live in the key time limits and deadlines guide, and the full syllabus walkthrough is in the Dispute Resolution revision guide. Two of the traps below turn on rules that changed recently, which means older revision material gets them wrong.
Trap 1: Strike Out and Summary Judgment Are Not Alternatives
The single most common DR confusion. Both dispose of a case early; they ask different questions and look at different material.
| Strike out | Summary judgment | |
|---|---|---|
| Rule | CPR 3.4 | CPR Part 24 |
| Test | The statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim (or is an abuse of process) | The party has no real prospect of succeeding, and there is no other compelling reason for a trial |
| What the court looks at | The statement of case — essentially the pleadings | The pleadings and the evidence: witness statements, documents, the inherent strength of each side |
| Assumption about facts | Facts as pleaded are assumed true; the question is whether the case is legally viable | No such assumption — the court weighs the evidence |
The distinction to hold on to: strike out is a pleadings point, summary judgment is an evidence point.
A claim that is beautifully pleaded but hopeless on the documents is not liable to be struck out — there is nothing wrong with the statement of case. It is a summary judgment case. Conversely, a claim that discloses no cause of action at all fails at the pleadings stage regardless of what evidence might exist.
The trap is a scenario that describes strong contradictory documentary evidence and then offers "apply to strike out" as an answer. It is designed to be chosen by candidates who learned both as "ways to end a claim early".
Note too the second limb of the summary judgment test. Even where a party has no real prospect of success, the court will not give summary judgment if there is some other compelling reason for a trial. Options that omit that limb are incomplete statements of the test.
Trap 2: Value Does Not Decide the Track
Track allocation is taught as a table of money, so candidates read the figure in the scenario and answer from the figure. The figure is the starting point, not the answer.
| Track | Value | Other characteristics |
|---|---|---|
| Small claims | Up to £10,000 | Costs recovery generally limited to court fees and certain disbursements |
| Fast track | £10,000–£25,000 | Trial of one day maximum; usually one expert per discipline |
| Intermediate track | £25,000–£100,000 | Introduced October 2023; fixed recoverable costs, four complexity bands; trial up to three days; no more than two experts giving oral evidence per side |
| Multi-track | Above £100,000 | Or anything too complex for the tracks below |
Three points that questions are built on.
The intermediate track is comparatively new. It came in in October 2023, with fixed recoverable costs and complexity banding. Revision material written before then describes a three-track system and is simply out of date.
Complexity overrides value. A claim worth £60,000 sits in the intermediate track band on value alone — but if it is brought by one claimant against three defendants, or needs more than two experts giving oral evidence, or cannot be tried in three days, it goes to the multi-track instead. The scenario details about parties, experts and trial length are not scene-setting; they are the question.
Some claims must go to the multi-track regardless. Mesothelioma and asbestos lung disease claims are the clearest examples, and clinical negligence claims unless both breach of duty and causation have been admitted.
So the reliable method is: take the value to get a starting band, then read the facts for anything that pushes the claim up. Candidates who answer from the number alone will be right often enough to feel safe and wrong exactly when the examiner intends.
Trap 3: ADR Is No Longer Merely Encouraged — Courts Can Order It
This is a genuine change of law, and material written before late 2024 states the old position.
The old rule came from Halsey: courts could encourage ADR and penalise unreasonable refusal in costs, but compelling unwilling parties to mediate was thought to be an unacceptable obstruction of the right of access to the court.
That is no longer the law. In Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council [2023] EWCA Civ 1416 the Court of Appeal held that a court can lawfully stay proceedings for, or order, the parties to engage in a non-court-based dispute resolution process, and that doing so does not breach Article 6.
The CPR was then amended to match, with effect from 1 October 2024:
- CPR 1.1(2)(f) — the overriding objective now expressly includes promoting or using alternative dispute resolution
- CPR 1.4(2)(e) and CPR 3.1(2)(o) — the court's case management powers now extend to ordering parties to engage in ADR in suitable cases
The trap is an option stating that the court "cannot compel the parties to mediate" or "can only encourage ADR and penalise refusal in costs". That was correct before Churchill and is wrong now. Costs sanctions for unreasonable refusal still exist — but they are no longer the court's only lever.
Trap 4: The Notice of Enforcement Period Changed on 1 May 2026
A pure currency trap, and a recent one.
Under regulation 6 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013, a notice of enforcement had to give the debtor a minimum of seven clear days before an enforcement agent could take control of goods. The Taking Control of Goods (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2026 changed that.
From 1 May 2026 the minimum notice period is 14 clear days. It extends further to 28 clear days where a debt advice provider makes a request on the debtor's behalf, unless the debt is a non-eligible business debt.
The change applies to enforcement action taken on or after 1 May 2026 and is not retrospective — enforcement action before that date is unaffected.
Two consequences for revision. First, any note, deck or textbook that says "seven clear days" is now wrong for present-day scenarios. Second, this sits next to a number that did not change: the CRAR threshold of seven days' rent in arrears is unaffected. Seven and fourteen now both appear in this corner of the syllabus meaning different things, which is precisely the shape of question the examiners like.
Trap 5: A Part 36 Offer Does Not Die When It Is Rejected
Contract law teaches that rejection kills an offer, and that a counter-offer is a rejection. Part 36 does not work that way, and candidates who reason from first principles get this wrong.
Under CPR 36.9(2), a Part 36 offer may be accepted at any time unless the offeror has withdrawn it by serving written notice. The rules simply do not provide for a Part 36 offer to lapse or become incapable of acceptance on being rejected.
It follows that:
- Rejection does not terminate the offer. It remains open for acceptance.
- A counter-offer does not terminate it either. The original offer stays live and capable of acceptance alongside the counter-offer.
- Withdrawal requires written notice. During the relevant period, withdrawing or amending generally requires the court's permission; after the relevant period has expired, the offeror can withdraw by serving written notice without permission.
The classic scenario: a defendant rejects the claimant's Part 36 offer, the litigation goes badly for them, and months later they purport to accept the offer they rejected. Under ordinary contract principles that is impossible. Under Part 36 it works, unless the offer was withdrawn.
This is a self-contained code, deliberately different from the general law of offer and acceptance covered in contract law. Treat it as its own system.
Trap 6: Without-Notice Applications Carry a Duty of Full and Frank Disclosure
Interim applications are usually made on notice. Where an application is made without notice — typically because giving notice would defeat the purpose, as with a freezing injunction or a search order — the applicant owes a duty of full and frank disclosure.
That means disclosing material facts including those adverse to the applicant's own case. It is a positive duty, not merely an obligation to avoid lying, and breach can result in the order being discharged regardless of the underlying merits.
Questions test this by describing an applicant who obtained an order without mentioning something unhelpful, then asking about the consequence. The answer is usually about discharge of the order, not about whether the substantive test was met.
How to Revise This Efficiently
Dispute Resolution rewards two different techniques, and candidates usually apply only the first.
For the numbers: bright-line drilling. Limitation periods and the procedural clock are pure recall. Spaced repetition handles them well — see the flashcard strategy and the key numbers guide.
For the choices: paired contrast. Strike out against summary judgment. Fast track against intermediate track. Part 36 against a common law offer. On-notice against without-notice. A card that asks "what is the test for summary judgment?" trains recall; a card that asks "the evidence is strong but the pleading is sound — which application?" trains the discrimination the exam actually tests.
Then practise in exam format, because DR questions are long and the operative fact is often buried in a subordinate clause — the number of defendants, the length of the trial, whether notice was given. That is the reading skill covered in the MCQ technique guide.
Our platform carries Dispute Resolution questions with worked explanations across all 14 specification topics, plus full FLK1 mocks — see what is included. If you would rather read first and drill second, the Dispute Resolution study guide works through each of these traps with worked MCQs.
Related Reading
- Dispute Resolution revision guide — the full syllabus walkthrough
- Land Law traps, Business Law traps and Solicitors Accounts traps — the same treatment for three more high-failure subjects
- The hardest SQE1 subjects ranked — where Dispute Resolution actually sits
- January 2027 specification changes — what else is moving