SQE2 Study Guide 2026
Everything you need to pass the SQE2 exam in one place: the exam format, every topic to study, real practice questions with explanations, flashcards, and full-length practice tests. Free, no sign-up needed.
📋 SQE2 Exam Format at a Glance
📚 SQE2 Topics to Study (33)
✍️ Sample SQE2 Questions & Answers
1. When drafting an indemnity clause, what key distinction should the drafter understand?
An indemnity creates a primary obligation to compensate for specified losses, operating independently of a claim for damages. The drafter must carefully consider the scope (what triggers the indemnity), any caps or exclusions, the relationship with limitation of liability clauses, and fairness under UCTA 1977.
2. The rule in Browne v Dunn requires that:
The rule in Browne v Dunn obliges advocates to challenge witnesses on disputed matters during cross-examination; failure to do so may preclude later submissions contradicting that evidence.
3. Open questions in client interviewing are preferred in the early stages because they:
Open questions ('Tell me what happened') invite a narrative response, giving the client control and ensuring no relevant facts are missed by premature narrowing.
4. What is a Newton hearing in the context of criminal sentencing?
A Newton hearing, derived from R v Newton (1982), is held where the defendant pleads guilty but disputes the factual basis asserted by the prosecution; the judge hears evidence and determines the facts to inform the appropriate sentence.
5. In a magistrates' court, when making a plea in mitigation, which of the following should an advocate address?
An effective plea in mitigation covers the circumstances of the offence (how it compares to the sentencing guidelines), the defendant's personal circumstances (employment, family, health), and any relevant mitigating factors such as remorse, cooperation, and good character.
6. The 'but for' test in causation requires the claimant to prove:
The basic causation test asks whether, but for the defendant's negligent act or omission, the claimant would have suffered the same loss; if so, causation is not established.