Case note (1 Viewer)

[amaccas]

Been doing some research into the 'correct' way to write a case note. I've got a maximum limit of 1800, and it seems as though it's easy to overload the case note with headings. For instance, they want us to consider each of the following
1. principles for which the case is authority
2. extent to which the case created new law
3. extent, if it all, to which the case is inconsistent with previously decided cases
4. Correctness or otherwise of the decision in the light of other authorities on the point.

My headings though, going from the suggested format of a case note, are:
facts,
magistrate's decision,
issue/s on appeal,
the Qld Court of Appeal,
outcome of the appeal,
issue/s on appeal,
the High Court,
then each of the 4 different judgments considered in turn,
outcome of the appeal

...considering points 1 to 4 (above), should I just work each of those into the analysis of what each judge found? or provide them as headings.

/signed Confused student. Any help appreciated!

 

[subdued123]

Hi,

Styles on case notes vary. You're right on your headings so far, but two things

1) you have quite a limited word count. 1800 words is not a lot, especially if it's gone to HCA, AND

2) Keeping in mind that the casenote is meant to summarise the important points - I would not waste too much time on the decisional history.

In summary - spend no more than two paragraphs what the lower courts held. You're not going to get a HD for spending 1000 words on what the trial/appeal judges held.

Focus on the HCA, the impact of the decision on the development of that area of the law in Australia, and more importantly, why the HCA judges differed with one another, and if possible, why you thought one argument was better.

Good case notes do more than just summarise judgements; they comment and analyse.

 

[hfis]

I think your headings go over too much irrelevant material in too much detail. I'd structure it like this:

Facts
Decisional History (two paragraphs, max)
Grounds of the High Court Appeal
Overview of the Principles Expounded on Appeal
(perhaps in the above) Brief Mention of the dissenting judgements, if any
Conclusion: What the law is now/where it might go in the future/etc

That will keep you under the limit, and focus you more on the appeal itself, which is what they want you to do.

 

[subdued123]

well said.

 

[amaccas]

where they want you to discuss the "Correctness or otherwise of the decision in the light of other authorities on the point", does that mean, correctness in light of the previous authorities, or correctness in light of subsequent decisions? edit: i guess this would fit into the main section, in the analysis of the principles expounded.

anyway thanks for help guys! i agree... don't really need to get bogged down in the procedural stuff so much here.

 

[hfis]

where they want you to discuss the "Correctness or otherwise of the decision in the light of other authorities on the point", does that mean, correctness in light of the previous authorities, or correctness in light of subsequent decisions? edit: i guess this would fit into the main section, in the analysis of the principles expounded.

anyway thanks for help guys! i agree... don't really need to get bogged down in the procedural stuff so much here.

This could also be included in the conclusion. They want you to diplomatically express an opinion as to whether or not, in light of how the law 'was', the decision was a 'good' development. Of course, you'll back this opinion up with facts or examples, or previous cases.

eg; 'This case represents a gradual shift away from (whatever), as first began in X v Y. Although the majority judgement is well reasoned, Kirby J's dissent raises some significant questions which must not be overlooked in the future; namely (whatever). Whether or not the law will now adapt to meet these shortcomings, or indeed, if they will ever surface, remains to be seen.'

Fun fact: this is one of the few useful things about dissenting judgements.

 

[amaccas]

yah true. good points you raise there. my biggest problem is I'm pedantic about structure. I'm trying to guess/obsess over how they want it set out and written.