Skip to content
SQEPracticeGet Started

SQE2 legal research: how to judge the source pack

SQE2 legal research is a 60-minute task. You are given a partner's email and a pack of sources, some of them irrelevant, and write a note explaining your reasoning, the key sources and the advice for the client. It is marked on three skills and three law criteria.

Updated 1 October 2026 · Checked against the sources listed below

Sample script: injunction research note

Legal research · Dispute Resolution · 60 minutes

Sample, tap anything

SkillsC2.7 / 5

LawC2.7 / 5

Station 53%

823 words

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

RESEARCH NOTE To: Kofi Mensah, Partner From: Trainee Solicitor Date: 1 October 2026 Client: Halden Lighting Ltd Background Halden Lighting Ltd is a Sheffield company which designs and sells handmade pendant lights online1 and through around 40 stockists including Penrose & Hale. Castlegate Metalcraft Ltd made its metal shades under a manufacturing agreement dated 3 March 2023 until Halden terminated it with effect from 31 August 2026 because of poor finishing. On 12 May 2026 Halden sent Castlegate the CAD files and drawings for the Orla II range so prototypes could be made. On 21 September Castlegate started selling the Lune range which Nadia says is the same as Orla II. Lune is £145 a shade and Orla II is £240. Halden wants to launch Orla II at the Northern Interiors Show in Harrogate on 13-15 October and Castlegate will also be there on stand B14 and expects £120,000 of orders. Castlegate is owed £46,800 by Halden, of which £12,000 is disputed. Nadia's brother is investing £25,000. 1. Will the court grant an interim injunction? The court has power to grant an interim injunction under CPR 25.1(1)(a) and can do so at any time (r25.2). The test is from American Cyanamid v Ethicon [1975] AC 396 as explained in AMOB Machinery v Smith-Hughes at [63]: (1) Is there a serious issue to be tried? (2) Would damages be an adequate remedy for the claimant? (3) Would a cross-undertaking be an adequate remedy for the defendant? (4) Where does the balance of convenience lie? Serious issue: Yes. Clause 9.1 of the agreement says Castlegate must not use the Confidential Information for any purpose except manufacturing for Halden and clause 9.4 says this survives termination. Lune appears to have been made from the Orla II drawings. The court will not decide the facts at this stage (AMOB [64]). Damages: Damages would probably not be adequate for Halden because it would lose the benefit of launching Orla II at the show2 and it is difficult to calculate lost sales to stockists. Yodel at [24] says that if damages would be adequate no injunction should normally be granted. Cross-undertaking: Castlegate would be compensated by Halden's cross-undertaking if the injunction turned out to be wrong3, as its losses would be lost sales. Balance of convenience: Lune is a new product so the status quo is that it was not being sold before 21 September (Yodel [25]). This favours Halden. I think an injunction is likely to be granted. 2. What Halden is taking on Under CPR 25.9(3)(a) the injunction order must contain an undertaking by Halden to pay any damages which Castlegate suffers and which the court considers Halden should pay. This means that if Halden loses at trial it could have to pay Castlegate for the orders it lost at Harrogate, which Gareth says could be £120,000, as well as other lost Lune sales. This is a significant risk and Nadia needs to be told about it before we go ahead.4 3. How and when to apply The show is on 13 October so the matter is urgent. Under r25.2(2) the court can grant an injunction before a claim is started if the matter is urgent.5 Nadia wants to apply without notice. Under r25.3(2) the court can only do this if there are good reasons for not giving notice. I do not think there are good reasons here, because Castlegate already knows Halden is unhappy from the emails on 28 and 29 September. Also under PD 25A para 4.3(3) the applicant should notify the respondent informally except where secrecy is essential.6 So I recommend an application on notice. Under r25.6(2) the application notice and evidence must be served at least 3 days before the hearing, which can be done before 13 October if we act this week7. If the application were made without notice there would be a duty of full and frank disclosure (Derma Med v Ally [2024] EWCA Civ 175 at [29]), meaning all material facts must be disclosed, and if they are not the injunction can be discharged. 4. Other matters - Nadia's witness statement Nadia has asked us to leave out of her witness statement the fact that Halden owes Castlegate money and the Instagram post she made on 20 May. I do not think we can do this. Under the SRA Code of Conduct para 1.4 we must not mislead the court, including by omission. The Instagram post could be relevant to whether the information was still confidential under clause 9.2 and the money owed is something Castlegate will raise anyway8. We should advise Nadia that both points need to be included in the evidence. It would be better to explain them, for example that only sketches were posted. 5. Next steps - Call Nadia to discuss the above. - Prepare the claim form, application notice and witness statement.9 - Serve the application on Castlegate at least 3 days before the hearing.

Tap a highlight to read its comment.

Work on next

Dispute Resolution: interim injunctions, the cross-undertaking and fortification in relation to the applicant's means

  1. 1.Address Halden's means, fortification and the £25,000 when explaining the cross-undertaking.
  2. 2.Evaluate the sources not relied on (PD 25A superseded, HRA s12 not engaged, AMOB [65]) instead of citing PD 25A as current.
  3. 3.Give the ethics fall-back and a concrete timetable and next steps.
  • You spotted 3½ of 7 key issues.
    • Partly: Adequacy of damages both ways, and the balance of convenience and status quo
    • Partly: The cross-undertaking in damages: what Halden takes on, third-party undertakings and fortification given Halden's means
    • Partly: How and when to apply: before or after issue, on notice (3 days) or without notice (good reasons; informal notice; return date)
    • Partly: Full and frank disclosure and the consequences of non-disclosure
    • Partly: Nadia's instruction to leave the invoices and the Instagram post out of her evidence (unflagged conduct issue)
    • Missed: Which sources govern and which do not (superseded PD 25A; HRA 1998 s12 not engaged; Lansing Linde not applicable)
  • Not everything asked was answered: No account of the sources not relied on and why (PD 25A, HRA s12, AMOB [65]); Fortification and Halden's ability to meet the cross-undertaking not addressed
  • The Cyanamid stages are applied briefly; damages adequacy ignores Castlegate's £38,000 net assets and the cross-undertaking stage ignores Halden's means.
  • Rightly rejects the without-notice route and flags the cross-undertaking risk, but gives no timetable, no fortification plan and thin next steps, and no fall-back if Nadia refuses to disclose.
  • The opening background section recites facts the partner already knows without analysis.

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

3 of 13 covered. Tap a point to read it in full.

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

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 legal research task
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

A partner emails you a client's problem and asks you to research it so that the partner can report back to the client. You are given a pack of sources, which may include legislation, cases, practitioner texts and guidance. Some of them are not relevant. You have 60 minutes to read the pack and write a note to the partner. The SRA says the note explains "their legal reasoning and the key sources they rely on, as well as the advice the partner should give the client". You do not need to write a research trail.

The topic sits within the practice area of the half-day, but may fall outside the law tested in SQE1. That is deliberate: the task tests whether you can find and apply law you do not already know. From 1 September 2026 the SRA maps the station to competence B2 of the Statement of Solicitor Competence, which includes judging the relevance of sources and presenting the findings accurately.

What examiners mark

HalfSRA criterion (exact wording)
Skills"Identify and use relevant sources and information"
Skills"Provide advice which is client-focused and addresses the client's problem"
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 first skills criterion is unique to research. It rewards using the right sources, not listing all of them. A note that cites every source in the pack shows that the candidate did not judge which ones matter.

Judging each source

Spend about 20 minutes on the pack. For each source, answer the questions below and mark it "use", "mention" or "set aside".

QuestionWhy it matters
Is it primary law (legislation, a case) or commentary?Primary law decides the point. Commentary helps you find and explain it, and should not be cited as the authority.
Is it in force and current?A repealed section, an old version of a rule or a superseded case can look relevant and be wrong. Check dates and amendment notes.
Is it the law of England and Wales?A case or statute from another jurisdiction is at most persuasive.
Does it bind the court that would hear this?A Supreme Court or Court of Appeal decision outranks a first-instance one.
Are its facts close to the client's?A case on different facts may be distinguishable. Say why, or set it aside.
Does it answer the partner's question?A correct source on a neighbouring issue is still irrelevant here.

Sources marked "set aside" usually need no mention. If a source looks relevant but is not, one sentence on why you set it aside shows the judgement the first criterion rewards.

A note structure to copy

  1. Heading: to, from, client, matter, date.
  2. The question researched, in one sentence.
  3. The short answer, with how certain it is.
  4. The law: each rule with its source, primary authority first.
  5. Application: the rule applied to the client's facts, one issue at a time.
  6. Sources set aside, only where a reader might expect them to apply, with a reason.
  7. Advice for the client: what the partner should tell them, the options and your recommendation.
  8. Conduct points and next steps, including any time limit.

A short annotated example

This is our own excerpt, not an SRA sample. The client is executor of her late uncle's will. The will gives his house to "my nephew Robert", but his solicitor's file shows he told her he wanted it to go to his niece Rachel. The grant of probate was issued four months ago.

  • [1] Earns credit (client-focused advice). The answer comes first, with a degree of certainty the partner can pass on.
  • [2] Earns credit (relevant sources; law correctly applied). The statute decides the point, the binding case supports a broad reading, and both are applied to the evidence in the file.
  • [3] Earns credit (relevant sources). The note uses the commentary to confirm the rule but cites the primary law. This is the judgement the first criterion rewards.
  • [4] Earns credit (law comprehensively applied). The time limit is identified and turned into a practical deadline.

Check your own note

Our paraphrase of what competent research notes do. The SRA publishes legal research performance indicators and a criminal litigation sample with its SQE2 sample questions.

  • Have I answered the partner's question in the first few lines?
  • Is every source I rely on relevant, current and authoritative for this point?
  • Have I cited primary law, not commentary, as the authority?
  • Have I explained in a sentence any source that looks relevant but is not?
  • Have I applied the law to the client's facts, not only summarised it?
  • Have I turned the research into advice the partner can give the client?
  • Have I noted any time limit and any conduct issue?

Common mistakes

  • Summarising every source in the order of the pack.
  • Relying on a source that has been repealed or overruled, because it was read too quickly.
  • Citing a textbook or a guide as the authority for a rule.
  • Stopping at the law. The note is for a partner who must advise a client, so it must end in advice.
  • Spending 40 minutes reading and 20 writing. Aim for about 20 to read, 35 to write and 5 to check.

The case and matter analysis guide covers the other 60-minute task, and the marking criteria page shows how the six grades become a station score. The SQE2 hub and plans and prices describe marked practice in every written skill.

Questions candidates ask

60 minutes for each legal research task. There is one in each of the three written half-days, so three in the exam.

Yes. The SRA says some of the sources provided may not be relevant, and candidates must identify the relevant ones and apply them to the scenario. The pack may include primary and secondary sources.

No. The SRA says candidates will not need to produce a research trail. You write a note to the partner explaining your legal reasoning, the key sources you rely on and the advice the partner should give the client.

Yes. The subject is within the practice area of the half-day, but it may fall outside the Functioning Legal Knowledge tested in SQE1. That is why it needs research.

Skills: identify and use relevant sources and information; provide advice which is client-focused and addresses the client's problem; use clear, precise, concise and acceptable language. Law: apply the law correctly and comprehensively, and identify and resolve any ethical and professional conduct issues.

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.

Test how you choose the right source

The free SQE2 diagnostic takes about 20 minutes: a short marked writing task plus quick questions, including picking the relevant source for a problem. The marking is automated.

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