Skip to content
SQEPracticeGet Started

SQE2 case and matter analysis: how to find the issues and write the report

Case and matter analysis is a 60-minute written task. You read a case file and write a report to a partner analysing the law and giving client-focused advice. It is marked on three skills criteria and three law criteria.

Updated 1 October 2026 · Checked against the sources listed below

Sample script: struggling company report

Case and matter analysis · Business Law and Practice · 60 minutes

Sample, tap anything

SkillsC3 / 5

LawC2.7 / 5

Station 57%

874 words

Skills and law count equally. No single station has a pass mark: the exam result is the average of all 16.

REPORT TO NADIA HUSSAIN Re: Grace Adeyemi, Kestrel Packaging Limited Introduction Grace is the sole director and shareholder of Kestrel Packaging Limited, which makes corrugated packaging in Wakefield and has 18 employees. In May 2026 it lost its biggest customer, Fernside Foods, which was 40% of turnover1, and it has made losses every month since then (£4,800 in May, £19,600 in June, £22,300 in July and £21,100 in August). At 31 August the balance sheet showed net liabilities of £176,700. The overdraft with Wharfedale Bank is £104,600 out of a £120,000 limit and is secured by a debenture, and Grace has given a personal guarantee of up to £75,000. She is hoping to sign a contract with Arden Garden Centres. Lindqvist, the main supplier, has served a statutory demand, and Brookfield are due to pay £52,000 on 9 October. 1. Grace's position as director The main risk for Grace is wrongful trading under s214 Insolvency Act 1986. If the company goes into insolvent liquidation and she knew or ought to have concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of avoiding insolvent liquidation, the court can order her to contribute to the company's assets. So the fact that it is a limited company does not fully protect her. The accountant's email of 29 September makes it clear that the company cannot pay its debts as they fall due and has more liabilities than assets. Arden is not signed and would not bring in money until February. From now on she is therefore at real risk.2 The defence is that she took every step to minimise the potential loss to creditors. She should stop ordering on credit (such as the £22,000 from Tern)3 and stop taking deposits like the Tallis £12,000, because those people may not be paid. She should get advice from an insolvency practitioner straight away and keep records of her decisions. 2. The statutory demand Lindqvist has served a statutory demand for £46,300 under s123(1)(a). The company has 3 weeks from service on 24 September, i.e. until 15 October, to pay or secure or compound the debt. Otherwise it is deemed unable to pay its debts and Lindqvist can present a petition to wind it up. Grace accepts she owes the money so there is no point disputing it. Lindqvist has suggested £15,000 now and the rest in instalments. This might be a sensible way to buy time, but the company does not really have the cash and it would be paying one creditor ahead of the others. Grace should take the IP's advice first. If a petition is presented the bank is likely to freeze the account.4 3. Grace's proposals Repaying her father: this would be a preference under s239 IA 1986. A preference is where the company puts a creditor in a better position than they would be in on an insolvent liquidation. Samuel is Grace's father and so is a connected person, so the relevant period is 2 years before the insolvency, not 6 months5, and it is presumed that the company was influenced by a desire to prefer him. The company is insolvent now. If the company goes into liquidation or administration, the liquidator could get the money back from Samuel. Grace should not repay him; he will have to claim as an unsecured creditor. Overdraft: Grace wants to put £12,000 against the overdraft. The bank is not connected and paying the bank is in the ordinary course, so this is less of a problem than the payment to Samuel6, but it would still be favouring one creditor and she should get advice before doing it. Deposits: she should not keep taking deposits for Christmas orders that may never be made. Backdated charge: Grace asks us to draft a charge for Samuel dated February 2025. We cannot backdate a document to make it look as if the loan was always secured. This would be misleading and dishonest and would breach SRA Principle 4 (honesty).7 We should tell Grace we cannot do this. 4. Options There are three main options. CVA - a company voluntary arrangement is an agreement with the creditors to pay part of the debts over time. It is proposed by the directors and supervised by an insolvency practitioner. It needs 75% of creditors by value to approve.8 If approved it binds the unsecured creditors. It could work if Arden signs, but HMRC and Lindqvist are large creditors. Administration - the directors can appoint an administrator, who will try to rescue the company as a going concern. There is a moratorium which stops creditors taking action against the company, including Lindqvist. The bank has a floating charge so it would be involved.9 Liquidation - the company would stop trading and the assets would be sold. This would not achieve Grace's aim of keeping the business going. Recommendation: Grace should see an IP this week. Administration seems the best option because of the moratorium10, which will protect the company from Lindqvist, and the administrator may be able to rescue the business and save the jobs. If Arden signs, a CVA could be considered later. 5. Other matters Grace should send the bank the management accounts by 9 October. She has missed the HMRC payment and should contact HMRC.

Tap a highlight to read its comment.

Work on next

Business Law and Practice: preferences to a guarantor (s239(4)(a), s241(1)(e)) and the directors' out-of-court administration route (notice to the QFCH, para 25(a))

  1. 1.Analyse the overdraft paydown as a preference to Grace as guarantor, with clause 9 and s241(1)(e).
  2. 2.Link the statutory demand to administration: a petition blocks an out-of-court appointment (para 25(a)) and the bank needs five business days' notice.
  3. 3.Complete the ethics handling: what happens if Grace insists, independent advice for Samuel and why a charge granted now would also fail.
  • You spotted 3 of 6 key issues.
    • Partly: Grace's personal exposure if trading continues: wrongful trading (when the point was reached, the standard, the every-step defence) and the creditor duty
    • Partly: Lindqvist's statutory demand: deadline of 15 October, effect of a petition, and Lindqvist's instalment offer
    • Missed: Grace's plan to pay down the guaranteed overdraft: a preference to herself as guarantor; the guarantee survives any insolvency
    • Partly: Options: CVA or administration (and liquidation as the fallback), with a recommendation
    • Partly: Grace's request for a backdated charge for her father (ethics), and why a charge granted now would not help either
  • You answered everything you were asked.
  • Wrongful trading and the father's preference are applied to the facts; the overdraft and the options are stated generally and the overdraft analysis is wrong.
  • Recommends an IP this week and administration, but gives no timetable tying the administration route to the 15 October deadline or to the bank's notice period.
  • The introduction recites background and monthly figures the partner already has.

Grades by criterion

Skills

Application of law

Tap a grade to see only its highlights. Tap a criterion to read the reason for its grade.

Law points

5 of 14 covered. Tap a point to read it in full.

  • Covered
  • Partly
  • Covered
  • Missed
  • Covered
  • Partly
  • Partly
  • Covered
  • Covered
  • Wrong
  • Missed
  • Partly
  • Partly
  • Partly

A sample script written for this demonstration and marked against the SRA's assessment criteria.

Try the free SQE2 diagnostic

SQE2 at a glance

for each case and matter analysis
60 min
criteria: 3 skills and 3 law
6
grade for each criterion, A = 5 marks and F = 0
A to F
stations: 4 oral and 12 written
16
Sources for these figures

What the task is

You are given a case study and documents: emails, a contract, company records, a will, a police record or a set of accounts. A partner asks for a written report that analyses the case and advises on what the client should do. You have 60 minutes, on screen. There is one case and matter analysis task in each written half-day.

The SRA's own description is "a written report to a partner giving a legal analysis of the case and providing client-focused advice". It may include options and strategies for negotiation. Because the reader is a partner, the report can be technical. Because the advice is for a client, it must end in a recommendation that fits what the client wants.

What examiners mark

HalfSRA criterion (exact wording)
Skills"Identify relevant facts"
Skills"Provide client-focused advice"
Skills"Use clear, precise, concise and acceptable language"
Law"Apply the law correctly to the client's situation"
Law"Apply the law comprehensively to the client's situation"
Law"Identify any ethical and professional conduct issues and exercise judgment to resolve them honestly and with integrity"

The SRA explains client-focused advice as advice that shows an understanding of the problem "from the client's point of view and what the client wants to achieve, not just from a legal perspective". In a 60-minute report, the most common way to lose that mark is to analyse every issue well and then list options without choosing between them.

Spot the issues before you write

A case file usually holds more issues than the partner's email names. Some are hidden in a document date, a figure or a single line in an email. Read the file in this order and keep an issue list as you go.

  1. The partner's email: what you are asked to do, for whom, and any deadline.
  2. The client's objectives: what they want, what they fear and their limits on cost, time and publicity.
  3. The documents, slowly: note every date, amount, signature and party, and ask what each one is doing in the file.
  4. The gaps: what has not happened that should have (a notice not served, a resolution not passed, a time limit running).
  5. The people: who is the client, who is not, and whether anyone's interests conflict with the client's.

Spend about 15 minutes on this. A report that finds every issue and treats each one briefly scores better on the comprehensiveness criterion than one that treats half the issues in depth.

A report structure to copy

  1. Heading: to, from, client, matter, date.
  2. Summary of advice: one sentence answering each issue, and your overall recommendation.
  3. Background: only the facts the analysis needs, in a few lines.
  4. One section per issue: the relevant facts, the rule with authority, the rule applied to these facts, the likely outcome and how certain it is.
  5. Options: each option measured against the client's objectives, cost, time and risk.
  6. Recommendation: the option you advise, and why it suits this client.
  7. Conduct: any professional issue, and how the firm should resolve it.
  8. Next steps and information still needed.

A short annotated example

This is our own excerpt, not an SRA sample. Northgate Ltd bought a warehouse for £240,000 from one of its directors, Priya. The board approved it, but no shareholder resolution was passed. Northgate's net assets in its last accounts were £900,000.

  • [1] Earns credit (identify relevant facts; law correctly applied). The two facts that decide the issue, the director as seller and the value against both thresholds, are picked out and applied.
  • [2] Earns credit (law comprehensively applied). The report gives the consequence and the director's personal liability, not only the breach.
  • [3] Earns credit (client-focused advice). The recommendation follows from the client's objective. A weaker report would list the remedies and stop.
  • Loses credit (ethics). The excerpt does not say who instructs the firm. If Priya is the director giving instructions for Northgate, there is a conflict of interest, and the report should say that instructions on this point must come from the other directors.

Check your own report

Our paraphrase of the competence indicators. The SRA publishes the full case and matter analysis performance indicators with its SQE2 sample questions.

  • Have I found every issue in the file, including the ones the partner did not name?
  • Have I used the facts that decide each issue, and left out the background that does not?
  • For each issue, have I stated the rule, applied it to these facts and given a likely outcome?
  • Have I compared the options against what the client wants, and recommended one?
  • Is the report clear and concise enough for a busy partner to act on?
  • Have I dealt with any conduct issue, including who the client is?

Common mistakes

  • Writing up the issues the email names and missing the one in the documents.
  • Reciting the law in general terms, then never applying it. "Directors owe duties under sections 171 to 177" earns nothing on its own.
  • Treating the facts section as a summary of the whole file.
  • Listing options with no recommendation.
  • Missing the negotiation angle where the client wants a deal, such as what to offer and what to concede.

The marked report at the top of this page shows these points in a full answer. The SQE2 legal research guide covers the other 60-minute task. The SQE2 hub and plans and prices show the full course.

Questions candidates ask

60 minutes for each case and matter analysis task. There is one in each of the three written half-days, so three in the exam.

A computer-based task in which you are given a case study with documents and write a report to a partner. The report analyses the law and gives client-focused advice. It may include options and strategies for negotiation.

Case and matter analysis is a report to a partner, so it can be technical and should cite authority where it helps. It takes 60 minutes and usually covers more issues. Legal writing is a 30-minute letter or email to a named reader, often a lay client, and is also marked on a logical structure.

Skills: identify relevant facts; provide client-focused advice; use clear, precise, concise and acceptable language. Law: apply the law correctly and comprehensively to the client's situation, and identify and resolve any ethical and professional conduct issues. Each criterion is graded A to F.

Yes, where they support a point. The reader is a partner. Citation is not marked for its own sake, though: the law marks come from applying the rule correctly and fully to these facts.

Sources

SQE Practice is independent of the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Rules, dates and fees can change: the SRA is the authority, and this page is checked against it.

Find out how you handle a case file

The free SQE2 diagnostic takes about 20 minutes: a short marked writing task plus quick questions, including spotting the issue in a set of facts. The marking is automated and grades each criterion.

Try the free SQE2 diagnostic

a marked writing task and 8 quick questions · about 20 minutes · free, no card details

Try the free SQE2 diagnostic20 min