Case Analysis Flashcards
(9 cards)
- Material facts
Usually found at the start of a case.
See example below for how to write it out in the exam.
- Material facts
See John J [1] – [10].
- Then break down the material facts in dot form.
- XXXX
- XXXX
Case analysis structure
- Material facts
- Procedural history
- Arguments
- Legal issue/s
- Legal Reasoning
- Ratio/rationes decidendi
- Discernible Ratio Decidendi
- Conclusion
- Procedural history
This is usually found at the start of the case.
* You need to find out if this case is a trial judgment or being considered for the first time or is it on appeal.
* You only need a couple lines to answer this question which again, can be in dot point form.
See example below for how to write it out in the exam.
See Brown J – [3].
This case was heard by the High Court of Australia in its original jurisdiction.
- Arguments
- Who are the parties to the case?
- Are they appellants/plaintiffs/defendants – make sure you use the correct terminology.
- What did counsel for either part submit?
See example below for how to write it out in the exam.
See Black J [3] – [4].
Counsel for the plaintiff submitted:
* X
* Y
Counsel for the defendant submitted:
* Z
- Legal issue/s
- What are key the legal questions the judges had to consider?
See example below for how to write it out in the exam.
See Smith J [15].
The main legal issue the court had to consider in this case was whether the Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) was a constitutionally valid law.
- Legal Reasoning
- How many judges/judgments etc.
- If there is more than one judge, who is in majority/dissent?
- If there is more than one judge, are there joint judgments or only individual judgments etc.
- What did each judge in the case you’re considering decide?
- Include their identification of legal issues/questions.
- Give some examples of obiter dicta (their main legal reasoning to answer the legal questions/issues. Think about what they are doing (Are they evaluating past decisions? Are they using hypothetical examples to assist with the analysis? Are they saying ‘If this had occurred’, ‘I want to make a few comments/observations’ etc?) Any theoretical approaches to consider?
- Then consider the judges answer to those legal questions they’ve identified (this is their ratio decidendi).
- Ratio/rationes decidendi
Ratio/rationes decidendi
- What was the overall ratio decidendi for this case?
- This is the answer to the legal issues/questions you’ve already identified.
- Not every judge will always agree on what these are.
- Discernible Ratio Decidendi
There must be at least a majority of all of the judges in the case with sufficient commonality between ratio decidendi for the legal issue.
Dissenting judges cannot contribute to an overall, discernible ratio decidendi for the case on this legal issue.
Even if there isn’t an overall discernible ration decidendi, a future lower court might follow the ultimate outcome of the High Court case in not reasonably distinguishable circumstances (McHugh J) because, while this might amount to seriously considered obiter dicta, from a lower court, this issue/s might be taken on appeal to the High Court and the High Court might then determine a different ratio to what a lower court decides.
A future lower court can decide to formulate its own ratio decidendi because it is not bound to follow the High Courts outcome where no discernible ratio decidendi exists, but as a matter of being pragmatic and by considering the fact that the issue might be a novel legal issue without a precedent, it might still follow the High Court’s seriously considered obiter dictum.
- Conclusion
- Conclude everything and consider alternative arguments.
- Critically evaluate the judges reasoning in your discussion here.
- Think about which one took a really narrow approach and whether in your opinion this was a stronger judgement than the others and vice versa for more broader judgements.
