Legal method — writing case notes and essays

Legal method centres on four transferable skills: identifying rationes, distinguishing precedents, reading statutes closely, and marshalling policy arguments within doctrinal constraints. The ratio decidendi is neither purely discovered nor invented but extracted through constrained interpretation — the legal principle (rule + material facts) necessary to the decision, as articulated in Goodhart's foundational method. Everything else is obiter. Structure follows substance: use IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) for problem questions; for essays, state your thesis early, develop arguments with authority, anticipate objections, and conclude decisively. Precision matters: 'overruled' for precedents, 'quashed' for administrative decisions, 'reversed' on appeal. Academic commentary enriches analysis when used dialectically, not decoratively.

_Donoghue v Stevenson_ [1932] AC 562 (HL): Lord Atkin's neighbour principle demonstrates how later courts narrow or broaden a ratio through interpretation — the paradigm of legal method in action.

_Young v Bristol Aeroplane_ [1944] KB 718 (CA): The Court of Appeal is bound by its own decisions save for three exceptions (conflicting CA decisions, House of Lords conflict, per incuriam). Establishes the hierarchical constraint within which legal reasoning operates.

_Pepper v Hart_ [1993] AC 593 (HL): Courts may consult Hansard when legislation is ambiguous, the material is ministerial, and intention is clear. Lord Browne-Wilkinson's majority judgment exemplifies how to engage constitutional and practical objections systematically.

_R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor_ [2017] UKSC 51: Lord Reed synthesises disparate authorities from Magna Carta to modern cases to articulate the constitutional right of access to justice — demonstrates how to construct coherent principle from multiple sources.

_R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal_ [2019] UKSC 22: Multiple judgments with different reasoning complicate ratio extraction — illustrates why case notes must identify the majority ratio while acknowledging ambiguity from powerful concurrences.

Courts apply legal method through structured analysis. First, identify the issue precisely. Second, state the governing rule from statute or binding precedent. Third, apply law to facts, distinguishing adverse authority by showing material factual differences or narrower ratio. Fourth, conclude with the outcome and residual uncertainties. For ratio extraction, follow Goodhart: identify facts the judge considered material, extract the rule linking those facts to decision. When multiple judgments exist, synthesise for majority principle. Essays demand a thesis stated early — every paragraph must advance your argument, not merely describe law. Integrate academic commentary to challenge or support doctrinal positions. Policy arguments require specificity: name the policies (deterrence, administrability, floodgates) and explain trade-offs.

Narrating without analysis: Don't retell case facts; state the ratio and doctrinal significance immediately. Unsupported assertions: Ground normative claims in authority or theory — 'unjust' needs jurisprudential backing. Confusing ratio and obiter: Check if the principle was necessary to decision; _High Trees_ promissory estoppel was obiter until _Combe v Combe_ made it ratio. Vague policy talk: Name specific policies and explain how the court balanced them. Ignoring the question: Every paragraph must relate to the question's key terms — highlight them before writing.