Analysis and reporting - Applying law to facts and providing...

Learning Outcomes

This article explains how to apply law to facts and provide informed conclusions in SQE2 analysis and reporting, including:

• Identifying and distinguishing material facts and relevant legal issues from complex scenarios.
• Applying the correct legal rules to those facts to reach defensible outcomes.
• Reaching justified legal conclusions with clear, logical, and transparent reasoning.
• Constructing clear, well-supported written and oral advice for SQE2 analysis, client reporting, and oral assessments.
• Referencing and weighing legal authority appropriately, while verifying the currency and status of the law relied upon.
• Structuring realistic options for the client, addressing risk, cost, and practical implications.
• Presenting analysis in plain English using an IRAC/FIRAC framework, with explicit assumptions, limitations, and recommended next steps.

SQE2 Syllabus

For SQE2, you are required to understand the core elements of analysis and reporting when handling legal matters, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

• Analysing a scenario to identify material facts and relevant legal issues.
• Accurately applying legal principles to those facts.
• Justifying your legal conclusions with reference to authority and reasoning.
• Communicating advice clearly and succinctly, both in client letters and oral reporting.
• Distinguishing between law, fact, and advice/opinion when explaining a course of action.

Test Your Knowledge

Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.

1. In SQE2, what is meant by "applying law to facts" and why must your written conclusions avoid simple recitation of legal rules?
2. When reporting to a client, how should you structure your advice in relation to legal risk and practical options identified from the scenario?
3. True or false? If two legal options exist but you cannot decisively recommend one over the other, you should present only the stronger option in your report.
4. Which of the following is NOT an aspect of good factual analysis in SQE2? a) Ignoring facts you consider irrelevant without justification. b) Distinguishing between background and key facts. c) Noting possible factual uncertainties or missing information. d) Identifying which party bears the burden of proof.

Introduction

Legal practice requires not just knowledge of the law, but the ability to apply legal principles accurately to the facts and deliver conclusions in a way the client or audience can understand and rely upon. In SQE2, this means you must move beyond simple identification of issues to rigorous analysis, justified conclusions, and clear reporting of risks and advice. You are assessed on both substance (selecting and applying the correct rules) and method (how you organise, explain, and communicate). Strong analysis includes verifying that the authorities you cite are current, using appropriate citations, and demonstrating balanced, client-centred advice that addresses objectives, constraints, costs, and timeframes.

Core Analysis Skills

Effective analysis and reporting require you to process information systematically as follows:

Identifying Relevant Facts

The starting point in any legal scenario is to distinguish facts that are material from background detail. Not all facts will affect the legal outcome. SQE2 examiners will expect you to:

• Highlight facts that are determinative of legal issues.
• Note factual uncertainties or gaps that affect your ability to advise.
• Recognise where further evidence might alter your advice or change the balance of risk.
• Identify chronology, participants, documents, and any admissions; flag inconsistent accounts or disputed facts for targeted follow-up.

Construct a brief timeline and a table of key actors. This helps you check the sequence for causation, limitation, and procedural requirements (for instance, pre-action steps). Record sources for each fact (client, third party, document) and any reliability concerns.

Key Term: Material Fact
A fact that could affect the outcome of a legal issue or the advisability of a particular course of action.

Spotting Legal Issues

After working out which facts are important, the next step is to identify the legal issues those facts trigger. This involves:

• Recognising which statutory provisions or case law may be applicable.
• Distinguishing between issues of law and issues of fact.
• Clarifying which facts support or weaken each legal issue.
• Separating substantive issues (e.g. breach, causation, remedies) from procedural issues (e.g. limitation, jurisdiction, notice requirements).

Use an issue list mapped to elements of each cause of action or defence. For statutory questions, note any defined terms and whether Parliamentary debates (Hansard) may assist interpretation where wording is genuinely ambiguous (see Pepper v Hart principles). For case-based questions, identify the ratio (binding principle) of leading authorities and how later cases have treated them (followed, distinguished, overruled).

Key Term: Legal Issue
A question about the application, interpretation, or consequences of a legal rule to particular facts.

Applying Law to Facts

Application is the heart of SQE2 analysis. You must not simply restate the law or set out facts separately—instead, you should:

• Integrate the legal rule and the fact pattern.
• Show clearly how each relevant fact influences the legal outcome.
• Evaluate how a court or competent authority is likely to resolve uncertainties.
• Consider alternative interpretations or likely arguments for both sides.
• Map element-by-element: for each rule, state the element, cite authority, then connect to specific facts and evidential strengths/weaknesses.

When relying on legislation or cases, check currency and judicial treatment before drawing conclusions. Subscription databases (e.g. Westlaw UK Case Analysis, LexisLibrary) display where reported, provide summaries, and show subsequent judicial consideration (applied, followed, distinguished, disapproved, overruled). Use neutral citations (e.g. [2014] UKSC 20) and preferred report series where available.

Key Term: Application
The process of connecting legal rules to facts to determine the likely legal outcome.

Drawing Conclusions and Advice

Based on your application, you must reach reasoned, defensible conclusions. This requires you to:

• Clearly answer the client’s question or scenario task.
• Justify your conclusion by showing the logical steps taken.
• Address legal or factual uncertainties or ambiguities in your reasoning.
• Offer balanced advice that considers practical risk as well as strict legal rights.
• Outline options, with pros/cons, costs (including potential adverse costs), timeframes, and contingencies.

Good advice explains the preferred option and at least one alternative, especially where outcomes are finely balanced or depend on further evidence. Where more information is needed, state assumptions and a plan to fill gaps (e.g. witness statements, expert evidence, document disclosure).

Key Term: Conclusion
A clear and justified answer to a legal issue, based on applying the law to the material facts.

Communicating Analysis and Reporting

In both written and oral SQE2 tasks, reporting is not just reciting your conclusion—it means presenting your reasoning and advice in a clear, structured way. This involves:

• Explaining, not just stating, your advice or recommendations.
• Addressing client priorities and possible consequences for each option.
• Distinguishing between legal advice and factual information.
• Using plain English and avoiding unexplained technical terms.
• Using IRAC/FIRAC headings or equivalent, short paragraphs, and tabulation for complex lists to avoid ambiguity (e.g. “The claimant may seek either (a)… or (b)….”).
• Including practical next steps (action plan) and setting expectations on costs and timeframes.

Before finalising any report or note, confirm your authorities are current. If statutory wording is ambiguous and the legislative purpose is material, note whether Hansard assists (consistent with Pepper v Hart). Reference cases and statutes using standard citations. For very recent developments, check up-to-date judgments via BAILII and confirm later reported versions before relying on dicta.

Key Term: Advice
Practical guidance for the client, based on stated legal conclusions and taking into account the client’s objectives.

Worked Example 1.1

Scenario:
Your client, Alice, entered into a contract with Bob for supply of goods. The contract stated delivery by 1 June. Delivery took place on 2 June due to Alice’s late payment. There is a clause stating “time of delivery is of the essence”. Bob claims repudiation, Alice seeks damages for late delivery. Apply the law and advise.

Answer:
The clause specifying "time is of the essence" renders timely delivery a condition. Although delivery was late, the delay was due to Alice’s late payment, which may excuse Bob’s late performance. Applying principles of contract law regarding conditions and the effect of a party's own breach, Bob may have a defence to repudiation. Alice is entitled to damages only if she proves loss from the single day’s delay and cannot recover if her breach caused Bob’s late delivery. Advise Alice to quantify any loss (e.g. additional storage or missed resale) and consider whether mitigation was reasonable. If repudiation is pursued by Bob, Alice could argue waiver or affirmation by continued performance post-2 June if present, but on current facts repudiation appears weak.

Worked Example 1.2

Scenario:
You are advising a landlord who wishes to forfeit a lease for tenant breach. The facts show several rent payments made late but subsequently accepted, and the lease is unclear on treatment of habitual late payment. What is your analysis?

Answer:
Material facts include the pattern of late payments and the landlord’s acceptance. The law on waiver of forfeiture rights and implied waiver by conduct applies. By repeatedly accepting late rent, the landlord may be presumed to have waived strict rights unless clear notice was given to the tenant. On balance, forfeiture is unlikely to succeed unless the landlord can show no waiver occurred and reserve the right expressly in writing at the next payment. Advise issuing a compliant s.146 LPA 1925 notice (if applicable to the breach), reserving rights, and amending rent collection practices to avoid further implied waiver. Consider agreeing a payment plan or serving a notice making time of payment expressly of the essence if appropriate.

Worked Example 1.3

Scenario:
A public body refuses disclosure of documents under a statute using the phrase “documents created or placed in custody for the purposes of an inquiry” and asserts an absolute exemption until they become historical records. Your journalist client argues the exemption ends when the inquiry concludes. How should you analyse and advise?

Answer:
Identify the material statutory phrase and any defined terms. In statutory interpretation, start with the natural meaning, then consider context, scheme, and purpose. Supreme Court guidance in a FOIA context indicates the critical phrase “for the purposes of…” may qualify each head of document, and exemptions can persist until the historical record threshold is met, depending on the statute’s scheme. Where language is genuinely ambiguous, Pepper v Hart permits reference to ministerial statements that clearly explain the mischief addressed, but only to resolve ambiguity. Advise the client that, on current authorities, an absolute exemption may continue until the statutory historical record point, unless facts show the documents fall outside the category (e.g. not created/placed for inquiry purposes). Consider whether other routes (common law access, judicial review of refusal, or challenging classification) are viable, and set out prospects and risks.

Worked Example 1.4

Scenario:
A supermarket customer slips on a spill near the chilled aisle and sustains injury. CCTV shows a spill present for 12 minutes before cleanup. The store has a documented hourly inspection system. Apply the law and advise on liability and quantum strategy.

Answer:
Identify duty under occupiers’ liability and reasonable care to keep premises reasonably safe. Key facts: documented system; the spill persisted for 12 minutes; foreseeability of spills in chilled aisles. Authorities support that reasonable systems reduce risk, but very infrequent checks may be inadequate in high-risk areas. A 60-minute inspection interval might be insufficient if the store knows of frequent spills; a 12-minute persistence could still be within a reasonable response time depending on staffing. Advise evaluating prior incidents and whether additional measures (spot checks, signage, absorbent mats) are warranted. On liability, prospects are moderate depending on evidence of system adequacy and implementation. On quantum, gather medical evidence, lost earnings, care needs, and consider contributory negligence only if clear (e.g. footwear issues are rarely persuasive). Propose early ADR to manage costs.

Exam Warning

SQE2 candidates commonly lose marks by restating statute or case authorities without explaining how those rules operate in their client’s actual scenario. Ensure every conclusion is directly substantiated by reference to both relevant facts and the applicable law. Check the currency and status of authorities (followed, distinguished, overruled) before relying on them.

Best Practice When Reporting Conclusions

• Structure your answer by setting out the facts, issues, law, application, and conclusion (FIRAC/IRAC model).
• Avoid unsupported assertions—always explain your reasoning with both law and fact.
• Set out any assumptions or limits to your advice if further evidence is required.
• For client communication, explain outcomes and risk in clear, practical language, indicating possible next steps.
• Cite authorities using standard form and preferred reports; verify subsequent judicial treatment using a citator.
• Indicate costs and timeframes for each option and any potential exposure to adverse costs.
• Use headings, short paragraphs, and tabulation for complex lists; avoid jargon or define it where unavoidable.
• Confirm updates for legislation (using reputable databases) and note if any imminent changes could affect your advice.

Revision Tip

In your practice answers, underline or highlight material facts and write one sentence for each linking it to your conclusion using relevant law—this develops the habit of thorough application. As you review, ask: which element does this fact prove or undermine?

Practical Techniques for Robust Analysis

Building your factual and legal map

Start with a brief chronology and list of key actors. Identify:

• Who bears the burden of proof on each issue and the standard of proof.
• Elements to prove (e.g. duty, breach, causation, remoteness; contractual formation, terms, breach, remedies; statutory preconditions).
• Procedural constraints (limitation periods, notice requirements, pre-action protocols).
• Remedial options and enforcement considerations.

For each element, capture:

• Authorities (statutes, leading cases, guidance).
• Facts that support or oppose the element.
• Gaps and how to fill them (e.g. documents, witness statements, expert evidence).

Using authority effectively

• Prefer authoritative reports (e.g. Law Reports, Session Cases). If unavailable, use alternative reputable series (e.g. Weekly Law Reports, All England Law Reports) or neutral citations.
• Assess subsequent judicial treatment (applied, followed, distinguished, disapproved, overruled).
• Where statutory language is unclear, consider whether Pepper v Hart permits reliance on Hansard to resolve genuine ambiguity with ministerial statements that clearly identify the legislative intent; do not use Hansard to contradict clear wording.

Presenting options and recommending

Options should be realistic and aligned to the client’s objectives. For each:

• State legal prospects, evidence required, and litigation risk.
• Estimate costs and likely timescales; note any ADR routes.
• Identify contingencies and propose an action plan to mitigate foreseeable risks (e.g. interim relief, protective steps, limitation expiry management).

If the balance is close, recommend the option that best fits objectives with acceptable risk. Where you cannot recommend decisively, explain why and state what further information would allow a firmer view.

Writing and oral reporting essentials

• Use plain English; avoid archaic or technical terms unless necessary, and explain them.
• Prefer active voice and short, clear sentences; use tabulation and numbering where it aids clarity.
• Keep client care front-of-mind: clarify next steps, timelines, and communication preferences.
• Record the basis of your advice, authorities relied upon, and any assumptions.

Common pitfalls and how to avoid them

• Over-citation without analysis: cite only what you use to reason to the conclusion.
• Ignoring alternative arguments: pre-empt likely counterpoints and address them.
• Uncertain law: state uncertainty and range of outcomes; do not overstate confidence.
• Currency errors: confirm the law is up-to-date; flag pending reforms or relevant consultations if they could affect strategy.

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

• Distinguishing material facts and legal issues is essential for accurate SQE2 analysis.
• Effective legal application integrates law and facts, not just stating each separately.
• Conclusions must be justified with clear reasoning, addressing legal and factual uncertainties.
• Reporting should distinguish between fact, law, advice, and risk, using plain English.
• Structured analysis and clear communication are assessed in every SQE2 assessment.
• Verify the currency and judicial status of authorities before relying on them; use citators and legislation analysis.
• Present options with risk, cost, and timeframe; propose practical next steps and contingencies.
• Use IRAC/FIRAC, short paragraphs, and tabulation where helpful; avoid jargon or define it.
• Where statutory wording is genuinely ambiguous, consider Pepper v Hart guidance appropriately; otherwise rely on text, context, and purpose.

Key Terms and Concepts

• Material Fact
• Legal Issue
• Application
• Conclusion
• Advice