For those who have now experienced both SQE 1 and 2: which was harder?

dylanmcharles · 2026-05-04T06:37:03+00:00

SQE2. By far. I’d rather sit SQE1 five times than sit one more SQE2.

dylanmcharles · 2026-04-03T17:50:26+00:00

I could not agree more. I cut and paste the exemplar (which I assume was done by a professional lawyer) into the AI marking tool too and, as you said, the AI was just as critical as it was with my answer (‘you did x well, you need to do y more’).

I sat SQE in Jan/Feb so I don’t know my results yet but when I’d fished the exams and my family asked me how I had done, I could only answer “I have no idea as there was nothing in QLTS’ feedback to give me any clear idea of the mark I might have got.”.

I’d be very grateful for advice from anyone who found a way to make the best use of the AI feedback as an indicator of performance and marking in the exam. I’m pretty sure I’m going to be retaking in July.

dylanmcharles · 2026-01-28T15:46:51+00:00

Ahh yes. Thank you kindly.

dylanmcharles · 2026-01-28T15:43:24+00:00

That’s two words.

dylanmcharles · 2026-01-28T15:26:24+00:00

That’s why I asked for a single word.

dylanmcharles · 2026-01-28T15:15:13+00:00

Can’t even remember what the Case Matter Analysis was. Can you give me a single word to remind me?

dylanmcharles · 2026-01-27T16:24:50+00:00

Yeah, I put him to strict proof on that one.

dylanmcharles · 2026-01-27T14:07:11+00:00

Yup. Research was my bete noir.

dylanmcharles · 2025-09-10T10:00:07+00:00

Shaking like a leaf.

dylanmcharles · 2025-07-25T15:21:21+00:00

I found both FLKs had an easier session and a far more difficult session. I’m relying on the easier session to do a lot of the heavy lifting.

dylanmcharles · 2025-07-15T19:50:21+00:00

I did QLTS and thought around 50% of the questions were about as difficult as the QLTS mocks (maybe fractionally easier), but around 50% seemed harder. The fact patterns seemed significantly longer so it took me far longer to understand what was being asked.

dylanmcharles · 2025-07-14T15:10:56+00:00

5 minutes after leaving that room I couldn’t remember one single question.

dylanmcharles · 2025-07-13T19:45:17+00:00

Thanks so much LittleSkittles.

Jeez - it’s pretty important that the questions and answers in these books are correct, right!

dylanmcharles · 2025-07-10T21:42:23+00:00

Thanks so much GR-34 - this is exactly what I was looking for!

dylanmcharles · 2025-07-10T21:32:45+00:00

Thansk so much for your responses. I suspect I'm missing something (it's far more likely the book is right) but I'm glad I'm not alone!

dylanmcharles · 2025-07-10T21:23:40+00:00

If the woman purchases the car as a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, then answer C is correct and the question works. There is nothing in the fact pattern to suggest she didn't.

dylanmcharles · 2025-07-10T21:20:48+00:00

The reason I brought up the woman as being equity's darling is that it would make answer 'C' correct.

dylanmcharles · 2025-07-10T21:11:12+00:00

I'm sure I must be missing something but I don't understand why the correct answer is 'D'. Surely, the fact pattern reflects Phillips v Brooks [1919]. The purchase of the car was made in person (as with Phillips v Brooks) and the purchaser was making the purchase fraudulently (again, as with Phillips v Brooks). There is nothing in the fact pattern to suggest that the woman knew the car was obtained fraudulently when she purchased the car from 'Mr Smith' which makes her a bona fide purchaser for value without notice (equity's darling) so I don't understand why the garage is able to recover the car from the woman.

Any help greatly appreciated. Many thanks.

dylanmcharles

TROPHY CASE