Dispute Resolution SQE1: CPR, Pre-Action Protocols and Costs Orders You Must Know

You’re sitting FLK1. Question 47 flashes up: “The claimant serves a Part 36 offer of £85,000 on 12 March. The defendant rejects it. At trial on 17 June, the claimant recovers £92,000. What costs order is most likely?” Your pulse spikes. You remember something about ‘beating the offer’ — but was it 21 days? Was it ‘within the relevant period’? Did the defendant make a counter-offer? You hover over the options… and freeze.

This isn’t a trick question. It’s FLK1 reality. Dispute Resolution is one of the seven subjects in FLK1 — and it’s where candidates most consistently lose marks not from ignorance of principle, but from misreading procedural nuance. The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) aren’t just background reading. They’re the architecture of every dispute-based MCQ. And if you treat pre-action protocols or costs orders as ‘low-yield’, you’re betting against the SRA’s own weighting — and against the fact that Dispute Resolution accounts for ~15% of FLK1’s 180 questions.

Why Dispute Resolution trips up even strong candidates

It’s not the law that’s hard. Contract and Tort are conceptually denser. But Dispute Resolution is *procedurally dense*. It demands precision — not interpretation. A single word changes everything: “must” versus “should”, “within” versus “by”, “without prejudice save as to costs” versus plain “without prejudice”. And the SRA tests those distinctions relentlessly.

Worse: many candidates learn Dispute Resolution from LPC-era materials — outdated by over a decade. The CPR has been amended repeatedly since 2013. The Pre-Action Protocol for Personal Injury (Low Value) Claims (the ‘RTA Protocol’) was replaced by the new Claims Portal process. The fixed recoverable costs (FRC) regime now applies to many civil claims up to £100,000 — and yes, that’s tested.

And yet — it’s eminently learnable. Because unlike Constitutional Law or Trusts, Dispute Resolution is highly patterned. Once you see the structure — pre-action → issue → allocation → case management → trial → costs — the questions slot into place.

The three pillars: pre-action, CPR, costs

Think of FLK1 Dispute Resolution as resting on three interlocking pillars:

• Pre-action protocols: Not optional guidance. Breach can trigger cost sanctions — and examiners love testing when a protocol applies, what its key steps are, and what happens if you skip them.
• CPR rules (especially Parts 1–3, 16, 36, 44, 45): These aren’t abstract. They’re the engine room of every MCQ. You won’t be asked to draft a witness statement — but you will be asked whether a party must file one before or after allocation, or whether a judge may or must strike out for non-compliance.
• Costs orders: This is where FLK1 separates the prepared from the hopeful. It’s not just ‘who pays’. It’s when, how much, on what basis, and what triggers a change. Part 36 is the heavyweight here — and it appears in at least 4–6 questions per sitting.

Miss one pillar, and your answer collapses.

Pre-action protocols: When they bite — and when they don’t

There are currently 14 active pre-action protocols approved by the Master of the Rolls. You don’t need to memorise all 14. But you must know the four most frequently tested:

1. The Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (2017): Applies to any business-to-consumer or business-to-business debt claim (not personal injury or defamation). Key point: the letter of claim must include specific information — amount owed, basis of claim, interest calculation, and details of any payments made. Failure risks cost sanctions even if the claim succeeds.
2. The Pre-Action Protocol for Professional Negligence (2017): Requires the claimant to send a detailed letter of claim at least 14 days before issuing proceedings. Crucially, the defendant has 21 days to acknowledge and 3 months to investigate and respond substantively. If they miss the 3-month window, the claimant can issue — but the court may later penalise the defendant on costs.
3. The Pre-Action Protocol for Clinical Disputes (2017): Similar timing, but adds mandatory disclosure of medical records and expert reports before issuing. Examiners like to test whether a claimant who issues without first sending a report is acting unreasonably.
4. The Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review (2013, revised 2022): Unique because it’s mandatory only if permission is granted. But crucially: if the court grants permission, it will expect parties to have complied — and non-compliance may lead to refusal of costs even if the claimant wins.

A common trap? Assuming a protocol applies to every claim in that category. It doesn’t. For example, the Debt Protocol does not apply if the debtor is insolvent, or if proceedings are issued to obtain a charging order. The Clinical Protocol does not apply if the claimant needs urgent injunctive relief. FLK1 loves these exceptions.

“The court expects compliance not as a box-ticking exercise, but as a genuine attempt to avoid litigation. A failure to engage meaningfully — even if technically compliant — may still justify a costs penalty.”— Practice Direction 1A, para 4.2 (as at May 2026)

Real-world mini-case study: When ‘compliance’ isn’t enough

Facts: Sarah, a solicitor, acts for a client claiming £42,000 for breach of contract against a small business. She sends a letter of claim on 10 January. It sets out the claim clearly, includes a schedule of loss, and invites settlement within 30 days. The defendant replies on 15 February — rejecting the claim and refusing to engage further. Sarah issues proceedings on 20 February.

Question: Has Sarah complied with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims?

Answer: No — not adequately. While she sent a letter of claim, the Protocol requires the claimant to allow the defendant at least 30 days to respond before issuing proceedings (CPR PD 1A, para 8). Her letter gave 30 days, but she issued on day 41 — just one day after the deadline. That’s compliant. But the defendant’s reply on 15 February was only 5 days after the 30-day window expired — and it was a blanket rejection, with no attempt to discuss settlement or propose alternatives. Under para 10 of the Protocol, parties must “act reasonably and proportionately” and “seek to avoid litigation”. A rigid, unyielding response like this could be deemed unreasonable — and if the court finds the defendant acted unreasonably, it may award indemnity basis costs against them even if they win at trial. FLK1 would test the consequence, not just the box-tick.

CPR essentials: What’s tested — and what’s not

You don’t need to know CPR Part 72 (Enforcement of Judgments) for FLK1. You do need Parts 1–3 (Overriding Objective, Court’s Powers, Case Management), Part 16 (Statements of Case), Part 36 (Offers to Settle), and Part 44 (General Rules about Costs).

Here’s what actually appears — repeatedly:

• Part 1, CPR 1.1(2): The Overriding Objective includes “ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing” and “saving expense”. FLK1 loves asking which of two actions best fulfils this — e.g., granting an extension of time versus striking out for delay.
• Part 3, CPR 3.1(2)(m): The court’s power to “take any other step or make any other order for the purpose of managing the case and furthering the overriding objective”. This is the “catch-all” power used to justify case management decisions — and examiners use it to test whether a judge could (not must) do something.
• Part 16, CPR 16.5: A claimant must serve particulars of claim within 14 days of issue — unless the claim form states they’ll be served later (which is allowed). Get the preposition wrong (“within” vs “by”), and you pick the wrong answer.
• Part 36, CPR 36.17: The big one. If a claimant beats their own Part 36 offer at trial, they get: (a) indemnity basis costs from the date the offer expired; (b) interest on those costs; (c) an additional amount (up to £75,000); and (d) interest on the judgment sum at up to 10% above base rate. FLK1 won’t ask you to calculate the exact interest — but it will ask whether the claimant gets indemnity costs from the date of issue (no — from expiry) or whether the “additional amount” applies if the offer was made after allocation (no — only if made before allocation).

Crucially: FLK1 does not test the mechanics of filing forms (N1, N244), nor the detailed content of practice directions. It tests principle, consequence, and timing. If a question asks “What is the effect of failing to file a directions questionnaire?”, the answer is almost always “the court may strike out the claim or defence” — not “file Form N181”.

Costs orders: Beyond ‘loser pays’

“Costs follow the event” is the starting point — not the finish line. FLK1 pushes past that into the granular consequences of conduct, offers, and compliance.

Three costs concepts dominate FLK1:

1. Standard Basis vs Indemnity Basis

Standard basis means costs are proportionate to the matters in issue — and the receiving party must show reasonableness. Indemnity basis flips the burden: costs are recoverable unless unreasonable. It’s more generous — and it’s triggered by Part 36 success, serious misconduct, or unreasonable refusal to mediate.

2. Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting (QOCS)

This applies only to personal injury claims (including disease and harassment claims falling under PI definitions). Under QOCS, a claimant cannot be ordered to pay the defendant’s costs — except in limited circumstances: fundamental dishonesty, abuse of process, or where the claim is struck out for no reasonable grounds. FLK1 loves testing the exceptions — especially “fundamental dishonesty”, which requires a finding by the trial judge, not just suspicion.

3. Fixed Recoverable Costs (FRC)

Since 1 October 2023, FRC applies to all civil claims valued up to £100,000 — across most tracks (Small, Fast, and Intermediate). It’s not just for RTA claims anymore. FLK1 tests whether FRC applies automatically (yes, unless the court orders otherwise) and whether a successful claimant in an FRC case can recover costs on the indemnity basis if they beat a Part 36 offer (no — FRC caps apply regardless).

Here’s the kicker: costs questions rarely stand alone. They’re embedded in scenarios involving pre-action conduct, CPR breaches, or Part 36 timelines. That’s why rote learning fails. You need to map the chain: Did the protocol apply? → Was it breached? → Did that breach cause delay or extra expense? → Does that trigger a costs sanction? → On what basis?

How to revise Dispute Resolution for FLK1 — without drowning

Forget rereading the entire CPR. Focus on patterns, not paragraphs.

Step 1: Build your decision treeFor every major topic (e.g., Part 36), sketch a quick flowchart: “Offer made? → Before/after allocation? → Accepted/rejected? → Trial outcome vs offer? → Costs consequences?” Do this for pre-action protocols too: “Claim type? → Protocol exists? → Key steps missed? → Likely sanction?” Ant Law SQE Question Bank helps here — its tagging lets you pull only Part 36 questions, then filter by “costs consequence” or “timing”, so you see the pattern across 50+ variants.

Step 2: Drill the ‘trigger words’FLK1 uses precise language. Highlight every instance of “must”, “shall”, “may”, “within”, “by”, “not later than”, and “save as to costs” in your notes. These aren’t flourishes — they’re signposts to the correct answer. If a question says “the defendant must file an acknowledgment of service within 14 days”, and an option says “by 14 days”, discard it instantly.

Step 3: Practise under timed pressure — with real stakesDon’t just read explanations. Sit full 90-question mocks — not because FLK1 is 90 questions, but because pacing is a skill. Candidates routinely lose 6–8 minutes on the first 20 Dispute Resolution questions because they over-read the fact patterns. Ant Law SQE Question Bank’s timed mocks mirror the SRA’s 2h 33m format — and its AI Legal Tutor lets you ask “Why is Option C wrong?” in plain English (or Mandarin, Japanese, Korean) and get a breakdown that references the exact CPR rule — not a paraphrase.

And remember: FLK1 isn’t assessing whether you’d be a good litigator. It’s assessing whether you know the framework well enough to avoid professional error. That means spotting the red flags — the missed deadline, the mislabelled offer, the unengaged defendant — before they become a client’s problem.

If you’re juggling qualifying work experience (QWE), a job, and revision, Dispute Resolution can feel like the last thing you have bandwidth for. But it’s also the highest-leverage subject for rapid score gain — because the patterns are tight, the rules are concrete, and the SRA sticks to them. There’s little interpretation. Just precision. And precision can be trained.

So start small. Pick one protocol. Map its timeline. Then one CPR part. Then one costs rule. Link them. Test them. Repeat.

Because on exam day, it won’t be about remembering the CPR. It’ll be about recognising the rhythm — and knowing, instantly, what happens next.

Ready to turn Dispute Resolution from a weak spot into your strongest FLK1 subject? Try the Ant Law SQE Question Bank at antlaw.ai — with 10,000+ FLK1-aligned MCQs, smart topic prioritisation, and real-time feedback on every answer. No fluff. Just what you need to pass.