What does the SQE1 Tort Law section actually test?

Negligence, vicarious liability, and other torts. The SRA assessment specification breaks Tort Law into 10 topics, each examined through single-best-answer (SBA) questions in the FLK1 paper.

Is Tort Law part of FLK1 or FLK2?

Tort Law sits in FLK1. From January 2027 the FLK1 paper is 170 single-best-answer questions (180 until July 2026), sat as two sessions of 85 questions, 2 hours 33 minutes each, on the same day.

How many topics are in Tort Law?

10. Our notes, flashcards, and question bank are mapped one-to-one against the SRA's TOR specification so nothing is missed.

How long should I spend on Tort Law?

Most candidates allocate roughly 30–50 hours across notes, flashcards, and timed practice. The exact split depends on your background — re-sitters can usually focus on weak topics rather than re-reading.

What is the best way to revise Tort Law?

Active recall beats re-reading. Read the notes once, then practise SBA questions in mixed order, then revisit weak topics. Our weak-area tracker surfaces the topics where your accuracy is below 70%.

Are these Tort Law SQE notes free?

The notes preview on this page and the sample topics are free, and the first chapter of the Tort Law study guide downloads free as a PDF and EPUB. The complete notes for all 10 topics come with lifetime access to the platform, and the whole subject is also available as a £9.99 study guide.

Are the Tort Law notes updated for the January 2027 specification?

Yes. The SRA's updated SQE1 specification applies from the January 2027 sitting, and the notes, questions and flashcards were revised against it in July 2026. Updates are included at no extra cost.

What is the difference between these notes and the Tort Law study guide?

Same content, two formats. The platform gives you the notes alongside the TOR question bank, flashcards and mock exams with progress tracking. The study guide is the Tort Law notes as a book, PDF and EPUB with a paperback edition, with worked questions and flashcards in every chapter, for £9.99.

Can I practise Tort Law questions without paying?

Yes. The free readiness quiz includes a sample from every subject, and free accounts can access sample questions across all subjects. The full TOR question bank is unlocked with a one-time lifetime purchase and is covered by the 14-day money-back guarantee.

TORFLK1 · 10 topics

Tort Law SQE notes.

Negligence, vicarious liability, and other torts. Below: a preview of the notes, all 10 topics, sample questions with worked explanations, and the first chapter of the Tort Law study guide to download free, all mapped to the SRA’s FLK1 specification.

Get full TOR access Get a free study plan

Free sample chapter

The first chapter of the Tort Law study guide, with five worked questions, as a PDF and EPUB. The full guide is £9.99 on its own, and every subject is included with lifetime access.

From the notes

Topic 01: Duty of Care

How the Tort Law notes read. Every one of the 10 topics is written the same way: the rule, the trap the examiners set, and a worked question.

Duty of care is the first hurdle in any negligence claim. Before you can even think about whether someone breached their duty or caused harm, you have to show that they owed a duty in the first place. If there is no duty, the claim fails at step one — end of story.

Duty of care — did the defendant owe the claimant a legal duty to take care?
Breach of duty — did the defendant fall below the standard of care expected?
Damage — did the claimant suffer damage that was caused by the breach and not too remote?

SQE1 Exam Approach: Duty of care questions are extremely common in SQE1. The examiner will often give you a scenario and expect you to work through whether a duty exists. Always start by asking: was the damage reasonably foreseeable? Then consider proximity and whether it is fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty.

Full notes for all 10 topics are included with lifetime access, or as the Tort Law study guide (£9.99).

All 10 topics in Tort Law

SRA-aligned

01
Duty of Care
Establishing a duty of care — the neighbour principle, Caparo test, and situations where duty arises or is excluded
Free
02
Breach of Duty
The standard of care, the Bolam test for professionals, and factors in assessing breach
03
Causation
Factual and legal causation, single and multiple causes, intervening acts, and the eggshell skull rule
04
Remoteness and Damage
Types of recoverable damage, remedies for personal injury and death, and psychiatric harm
05
Pure Economic Loss
Claims for pure economic loss arising from negligent acts and misstatements
06
Employers' and Vicarious Liability
Employers' primary liability, vicarious liability, course of employment, and non-delegable duties
07
Defences
Volenti non fit injuria, contributory negligence, illegality, and exclusion of liability
08
Occupiers' Liability
OLA 1957 (visitors), OLA 1984 (non-visitors), defences, and exclusion of liability
09
Product Liability
Principles of product liability in negligence and under the Consumer Protection Act 1987
10
Nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher
Public and private nuisance, the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, remedies and defences

Try before you buy

4 sample TOR questions

Real SBA questions from the Tort Law bank, with the full explanation. The paid bank covers all 10 topics and difficulty levels.

A man buys a sealed box of cereal bars from a corner shop and gives one to a woman he works with. The manufacturer makes and wraps the bars and supplies them to retailers in sealed boxes that cannot be opened or examined before sale. A sharp metal fragment from a worn cutting blade at the manufacturer's plant is embedded in the bar. The woman bites into it, breaking a tooth and cutting her mouth badly. She paid nothing for the bar.

Does the manufacturer owe the woman a duty of care in respect of her injury?

Yes, because a manufacturer owes a duty to the ultimate consumer of a product supplied in sealed packaging. Correct
Yes, because a manufacturer is liable for any defect in its products whether or not it took reasonable care.
No, because a duty of care in negligence arises only between parties in a direct contractual relationship.
No, because the woman had no dealings with the manufacturer capable of amounting to a special relationship.
No, because liability for unsafe consumer products is governed exclusively by statute and not by the common law.

Why: The correct answer is A. A manufacturer owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumer of its products, even where there is no contract between them, where the goods reach the consumer in a form that prevents any intermediate examination and injury from a defect is reasonably foreseeable (Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]). Lord Atkin's neighbour principle requires reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions likely to injure those so closely and directly affected that they ought to be in contemplation. The woman is the ultimate consumer of a sealed bar, which is an established duty category, so no wider analysis of the duty question is needed (Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [2018]). B is incorrect because negligence is fault-based: the woman must show that the manufacturer fell below the standard of reasonable care. Strict liability for defective products is a separate statutory route under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. C is incorrect because the duty does not depend on any contract — that is the very point decided in Donoghue. D is incorrect because no pre-existing special relationship is required where a defective product causes personal injury; the manufacturer and consumer relationship is itself the recognised category. E is incorrect because the common law and the Consumer Protection Act 1987 run in parallel; the statute does not displace negligence.

A firm of accountants is engaged by a manufacturing company to audit and prepare its statutory accounts, which are then filed at Companies House. A trade supplier that has never dealt with the company reads the filed accounts, sees healthy profits, and agrees to supply it with raw materials on 60 days' credit. The figures have been prepared carelessly and overstate the profits substantially. The company is wound up before paying and the supplier recovers nothing. The accountants have never heard of the supplier.

What is the best advice to give the supplier about a claim in negligence against the accountants?

The claim will succeed, because the accountants could foresee that a supplier might read the filed accounts and act on them.
The claim will fail, because the accountants were in no proximate relationship with a supplier unknown to them. Correct
The claim will fail, because pure economic loss can never be recovered in the tort of negligence.
The claim will succeed, because the accountants held themselves out as having special skill in preparing accounts.
The claim will fail, because the supplier gave the accountants no consideration for their work.

Why: The correct answer is B. Where a claim for pure economic loss caused by a careless statement falls outside an established category, the court asks whether the loss was reasonably foreseeable, whether the relationship between the parties was sufficiently proximate, and whether it would be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty (Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990]; on when that incremental analysis is needed, see Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [2018]). Foreseeability is satisfied here, but proximity is not: the accountants prepared statutory accounts for the company, knew nothing of this supplier, and knew nothing of the credit decision it was about to take, so they assumed no responsibility towards it. A is incorrect because foreseeability alone does not found a duty in respect of pure economic loss caused by a statement; proximity and policy must also be satisfied. C is incorrect because pure economic loss is recoverable where responsibility has been assumed under a special relationship (Hedley Byrne v Heller [1964]). D is incorrect because holding a professional skill does not by itself create a duty to everyone who later reads the document produced. E is incorrect because consideration is a contractual concept and is irrelevant to the existence of a duty of care in negligence.

A company buys a commercial unit built five years earlier. Its concrete floor slab was designed by the building contractor without enough reinforcement and has begun to crack and lift. An engineer reports that the unit is safe to use, but that replacing the slab will cost a large sum and that the unit is worth less until it is replaced. The developer that sold the unit has since been dissolved, so the company sues the contractor for the cost of the work.

Can the company recover the cost of replacing the slab from the contractor?

Yes, because a builder owes the same duty to avoid economic loss as to avoid physical injury.
No, because the cost of repairing a defective but safe building is pure economic loss. Correct
Yes, because the cracking of the slab is physical damage to the company's own property.
Yes, provided the company can show that the weakness of the slab was foreseeable when it was designed.
No, because the company's only remedy lay against the developer that sold it the unit.

Why: The correct answer is B. The cost of putting right a building that is defective but not dangerous, and the fall in its value until that is done, are pure economic loss. There is no general duty in negligence to avoid causing pure economic loss by a careless act, so such losses are a matter for contract or for statute rather than for the common law (Murphy v Brentwood DC [1990], departing from Anns v Merton LBC [1978]). A is incorrect because the law treats pure economic loss very differently from physical injury, and no equivalent duty exists. C is incorrect because a defect in the thing itself is not damage to some other property of the claimant; the slab was defective when built rather than damaged afterwards. D is incorrect because foreseeability cannot make irrecoverable loss recoverable; the obstacle lies in duty, not in foreseeability. E is incorrect because the reason the claim fails is the nature of the loss, not the identity of the defendant; a claim against the developer would have been contractual, and the disappearance of that route does not create a duty in tort.

A primary school holds its sports day on the school field. Building work the week before has left a patch of the field rutted and uneven. A teacher notices it two days before the sports day and mentions it in the staff room, but nothing is done to fence it off or move the running track. During a race a nine-year-old catches her foot in a rut, falls and breaks her wrist. The school says that children often fall over when they run and that this was simply an accident.

Is the school likely to be liable to the pupil for her injury?

No, because a school cannot be expected to remove every possible risk from its playing field.
No, because tripping while running is an ordinary risk that any child taking part in a race accepts.
Yes, because a school is strictly liable for any injury suffered by a pupil in its care.
No, because the uneven ground was created by the contractor who carried out the building work.
Yes, because a school must guard against risks that children cannot be expected to appreciate themselves. Correct

Why: The correct answer is E. A school owes a duty of care to its pupils (Carmarthenshire County Council v Lewis [1955]), and the care reasonably required of it is greater than that owed between adults, because children are less able to appreciate risks and to guard against them; the standard is often expressed as that of a reasonably careful parent applied to the conditions of school life. The school knew of the hazard for two days, could easily have fenced it off or moved the track, and did neither. A is incorrect because the duty is to take reasonable care, and fencing off a known hazard for one afternoon is plainly reasonable. B is incorrect because the risk here was not the ordinary risk of running but a hazard the school knew about and left in the children's path. C is incorrect because the duty is fault-based; a school is not an insurer of its pupils' safety. D is incorrect because the school's duty is to its pupils and is not discharged by pointing to whoever created the hazard; it knew of the danger and allowed the race to run over it.

Unlock the full TOR bank14-day money-back · one-time payment

Free audio course

Listen to Tort Law — Season 3 of the podcast

Every topic below is also a free podcast episode — the rules, the traps and a worked question in around fifteen minutes, on your commute.

Browse all seasons →

Free study plan

Revising Tort Law? Start with a plan.

Tell us your exam date and we’ll email you a week-by-week schedule that gives Tort Law the time it needs — alongside the other FLK1 subjects.

Common questions

Tort Law FAQs

14-day money-back guarantee

Ready to start preparing?

One-time payment. Pick the plan that fits your timeline. Start with the free readiness quiz.

Free readiness quiz View pricing