SQE2 legal research example

This SQE2 legal research example answers an exam-style question on a will witnessed by a beneficiary, showing how to find the rule, cite it and reach a clear answer. Read it with the SQE2 legal research skill page and practise on a timed research task.

The task

A partner asks: "Our client, Nasreen Hussain, is the executor of her late aunt's will. The will gives a house to Nasreen's cousin, Imran. Imran and one neighbour witnessed the will signature. Is the gift to Imran valid?" The facts are invented. In the SQE2 research task you are given a set of materials and must find and apply the relevant rules in about 60 minutes.

Research is marked on identifying and using the relevant sources, a logical structure, clear and concise language, correct application of law and ethics. A short, correct answer beats a long one that does not answer the question.

Step 1: frame the question

Turn the partner's words into a legal question: Does the fact that a beneficiary witnessed the will affect the validity of the will or of the gift to that beneficiary?

Write down what you need: the formalities for a valid will, the rule on beneficiary witnesses, and any exception.

Step 2: find and rank the sources

Start with statute, then case law and then commentary. In a research task you will be given a bundle. Read the contents list first, then the headings. Do not read every page from the start.

• Wills Act 1837, section 9: a will must be in writing, signed by the testator (or by someone in their presence and at their direction), the signature intended to give effect to the will, made or acknowledged in the presence of two or more witnesses present at the same time, and each witness attests and signs in the testator's presence.
• Wills Act 1837, section 15: if a person who attests the will, or their spouse or civil partner, is a beneficiary, the gift is void so far as it concerns that person, but the will is not invalid.
• Wills Act 1968, section 1: the attestation by such a person is disregarded if the will is validly executed without it, so the gift is saved if there are two other witnesses.

Step 3: write the answer

Short answer. The will is valid, but the gift to Imran is void. The will has only two witnesses and one of them is Imran, so his attestation cannot be disregarded.

Reasoning.

1. Section 9 of the Wills Act 1837 requires two witnesses. A beneficiary is a competent witness, so the will satisfies section 9 and is valid.
2. Section 15 provides that a gift to a person who attests the will is void. Imran attested, so the gift to him fails.
3. Section 1 of the Wills Act 1968 would save the gift only if the will were validly executed without the attestation of Imran. It is not: without Imran there is one witness, not two. The exception does not apply.

Consequence. The house falls into residue, or passes under the intestacy rules if there is no residuary gift that takes it. Imran does not take it under the will. The client should check whether a gift over, a residuary clause or the rules of intestacy decide who receives the house.

Further point. I have not seen the will or the attestation clause. I recommend we check who actually signed, and whether a later codicil confirms the gift. A codicil witnessed by two independent witnesses can save the gift to Imran.

Ethics. We act for Nasreen as executor, not for Imran. She must give effect to the law even if she gains from the gift failing, for example as a residuary beneficiary. If Imran contacts us, we should tell him we cannot advise him and that he should take independent advice.

Why this works

It leads with the answer, then reasons in short numbered steps, each tied to a named section. A reader can check your work. The assessor can see you identified the correct sources and used them.

It shows the trap: the exception in the 1968 Act exists but does not help on these facts. It states what remains uncertain, and what to check next, without guessing.

The ethics point is short and specific. From 1 September 2026 there is a separate ethics criterion in SQE2, so include one where facts allow.

What an assessor looks for

• The right question, framed in your own words.
• Relevant sources identified from the bundle, and cited properly.
• A clear answer at the start.
• Correct law, with exceptions considered.
• No padding: no copied extracts, no unrelated rules.
• Caveats stated honestly, such as a document you have not seen.

The SRA grades each criterion from A (superior) to F (extremely poor).

Common mistakes

• Pasting long passages instead of explaining.
• Answering from memory when the bundle contains the rule.
• Missing the exception.
• Using out-of-date law. Check the date and whether a provision has been amended.
• Not saying what you could not check.

Cite as you write. A short reference such as "Wills Act 1837, s 15" after each point takes seconds and saves marks.

Checklist

1. Write the question in one sentence.
2. Scan the contents and pick the sources.
3. Note the rule and any exception.
4. Apply to each fact.
5. Answer first, reasons second.
6. State limits and next steps.
7. Add a short ethics point.

Questions

Related

• SQE2 legal research: a method that fits in 60 minutes
• SQE2 wills and probate: what the tasks look like
• SQE2 case and matter analysis example
• SQE2 ethics and professional conduct: how it is tested

Sources: SRA: The SQE2 assessment (presentation); Legislation.gov.uk: Wills Act 1837; Legislation.gov.uk: Wills Act 1968. Checked 10 November 2026.