SQE2 case and matter analysis example

This SQE2 case and matter analysis example works through a building dispute file and shows how to move from facts to issues, law, evidence, strategy and next steps. Use it with the case and matter analysis skill page and try a full file on our practice tasks.

The file

Your client, Omar Siddiqui, is a builder. He built a rear extension for Mrs Julia Frost for an agreed price of £42,000. She has paid £23,600. He claims the balance, £18,400. She refuses to pay and says the roof leaks and the kitchen units were fitted badly. She says she has had a quote of £6,500 to put things right. The file holds the signed quote, two emails in which Mrs Frost praised the work, an email three weeks later complaining of a leak, and photographs. Omar wants to know what to do. All facts are invented.

A case and matter analysis task asks you to read the file, find what matters, and explain what to do and why. It is not a summary. The assessor wants judgement.

A worked analysis

1. Objective

Omar wants the £18,400 balance paid, at proportionate cost, and wants to protect his business reputation.

2. Issues

• Liability: did Omar do the work with reasonable care and skill? Mrs Frost is a consumer, so this is a term implied by the Consumer Rights Act 2015, section 49.
• Quantum: is the defence a set-off or a counterclaim for defects, and what is the true cost of putting it right?
• Evidence: is the leak caused by Omar's work or by something else?

3. Strengths

• Written contract and price.
• Mrs Frost's emails praising the work, sent before any complaint.
• Photographs of completed work.

4. Weaknesses and gaps

• The complaint came 3 weeks after the praise. The praise helps Omar but is not decisive, because a defect such as a leak may not show at once.
• No independent report on the roof. Both sides are guessing at cause.
• The file does not show whether the contract has a retention or a snagging clause.

5. Law and value

If Mrs Frost proves defects, her claim reduces what she must pay, or exceeds it. A realistic view is that Omar recovers £18,400 less the proven cost of repairs. If her figure of £6,500 is accepted, he recovers £11,900. At £18,400 the claim is within the fast track, which is for claims over £10,000 up to £25,000, so costs recovery is limited and fixed in many cases. This affects strategy: spending heavily on experts may cost more than the disputed £6,500.

6. Strategy

1. Instruct a surveyor to inspect the roof and kitchen. It is the key evidence.
2. Offer to inspect and put right any proven defects. As a consumer, Mrs Frost can ask for the work to be done again properly (Consumer Rights Act 2015, section 55), and an offer shows Omar is reasonable.
3. Send a letter of claim that follows the correct pre-action rules, enclosing key documents. Check which protocol applies: a business claiming a debt from an individual must usually follow the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. If no protocol applies, follow the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct.
4. Propose mediation or negotiation. Courts expect parties to consider ADR, and the court may order it. Unreasonable silence can affect costs. (Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil CBC [2023] EWCA Civ 1416.)
5. Consider a Part 36 offer to settle at a figure that reflects the disputed repairs. It puts costs pressure on Mrs Frost.
6. Issue proceedings only if she does not engage.

7. Risks and ethics

Costs may exceed the sum in dispute. We must not mislead Mrs Frost or the court, and we must review Omar's own documents honestly, including the complaint email that hurts his case. We should advise him fairly on the chance of success, not simply on what he hopes.

8. Next steps

Within seven days: instruct the surveyor, collect the contract, and send the letter of claim.

Why this works

It starts from the client's objective, not the facts. It groups the issues, sorts evidence into strengths and gaps, and links value to procedure. It states a recommended plan in order. It identifies the missing document, which is a skill assessors look for.

It also ties the law to the decision: the fast track point shows why cost control matters. This is client-focused analysis, not a law essay.

What an assessor looks for

• Relevant facts picked out, irrelevant ones left out.
• A logical structure, usually objective, issues, law, evidence, strategy, risks, next steps.
• Correct and comprehensive law, including procedure and costs.
• Judgement: a recommended path, not a list of possibilities.
• Ethics points that arise from the file, even if unflagged.

Common mistakes

• Retelling the file in order.
• Stating law with no link to the client's choices.
• Missing a time limit or pre-action step.
• Leaving out the gaps in the evidence.
• Ending without a recommendation or next steps.

For each issue, write: what the law requires, what evidence you have, what you lack. This habit makes the structure automatic.

Checklist

1. Objective.
2. Issues, ranked.
3. Law for each issue.
4. Evidence for and against, and gaps.
5. Value, track and costs.
6. Options and recommendation.
7. Risks and ethics.
8. Next steps with timing.

Questions

Related

• SQE2 case and matter analysis: a 60-minute method
• SQE2 dispute resolution: what the tasks look like
• SQE2 legal research example
• SQE2 ethics and professional conduct: how it is tested

Sources: SRA: The SQE2 assessment (presentation); Law Society: SQE1 and SQE2 assessments; Legislation.gov.uk: Consumer Rights Act 2015. Checked 10 November 2026.