How I structured problem-question answers in FHS Tort (and why structure beats content)
Recurring observation from supervising FHS tort: students who write more do not always score more. Marks for problem questions in tort cluster on structure first, content second. Here's the structure that consistently scored 70+ for me and the people I tutored:
1. Identify all parties and all heads of claim. (1 line each.)
Tarryn (T) may sue Driver (D) in negligence for personal injury and Manufacturer (M) under CPA 1987 for the defective brakes; secondary claims by Bystander (B) for psychiatric injury.
2. For each head of claim, IRAC explicitly:
- Issue. What's contested? "Does D owe T a duty in respect of psychiatric injury?"
- Rule. Lead authority + the test. "Per Alcock, secondary victims must satisfy [proximity to event + means of perception + close ties of love and affection]."
- Application. This is where the marks live. Map the facts to each limb explicitly. "T was 200m from the collision (proximate; cf. McLoughlin v O'Brian). She heard the impact directly (means of perception satisfied). She is D's spouse (presumed close tie under Alcock)."
- Conclusion. Brief, definite. "T satisfies the Alcock criteria; the duty is established."
3. End with a one-sentence verdict per claim.
What I always did wrong before getting this right. I'd front-load 200 words of background on Donoghue v Stevenson before mentioning the parties. Examiners don't care about your re-statement of the doctrinal history. They care about whether you can apply the test to these facts.
Happy to dig into specific past-question structures if anyone wants. Tag your reply with the year and the question number.