Use ‘v’ for versus Where the party names are individuals, only the surname should be cited Many cases are referred to as ‘In ‘In the ...’ ...’ or ‘In ‘In re’ the matter matter of of re’ This should be shortened to ‘e’ ‘e’ should be cited as ‘!" should ‘!" p# !" parte !" parte p#
%in italics and v used for versus& of the case in brac(ets %place in s)uare brac(ets if the volume fails to identify the case* place in parenthesis if the year identifies the case& The number of +a eport %if reported& The -abbreviation of the %if reported& The number of the case %if reported& The abbreviation of the here the case as decided %post /01 only& The of the passa$e you are referrin$ to %often called the ‘pinpoint’&, if applicable
2ritish ail,ays 2oard v 3ic(in 45678 9C 601 %+& 600;60/ 45678 Mercantile Credit Co +td v
= %?2& 4558 2CC 77A %Ch& 770 e Travel Mondial %U@& +td 4558 Blaen$er D Bons v Bpaldin$ D 2ros 45>8 2ros 45>8 Ch 716 %Ch&
9cademic +e$al Writin$-7>7
The name and citation of the case %i.e. 'ono$hue v Btevenson 45=78 9C 107, Eame of the court and Gud$e%s&, Eame and status of each party 'ate of the Gud$ment* The facts of the case* The prior history of the case in loer courts %if mentioned in the Gud$ment&* The cause of action or claim involved in the case %for e"ample, the issue on appeal&* 9 summary of the holdin$ or Gud$ments, includin$ any dissentin$ Gud$ments, hich should include: The facts that ere considered material or relevant, The The reasonin$ considered by the court in support of, or a$ainst, the principle, and 9ny or si$nificant observations by the court*
The theoretical (ey to the common la system of precedent is the all important distinction beteen the ratio decidendi and obiter dicta in a case. The ratio decidendi is the actual rule of la stated in the holdin$ of a decision, a rule that ill be bindin$ on future courts. 9n obiter dictum , on the other hand, is a Gudicial pronouncement on the la that is not inte$ral to the holdin$ itself. While it may be considered by a later court, an obiter dictum ill not establish a rule of la that must be folloed by any court. 9lthou$h this distinction is for the most part merely a le$al myth, it is carefully retained by the layers ho utilise it to formulate le$al ar$uments. eco$nisin$ this fact, you should read and summarise 9cademic +e$al Writin$-7>7
cases in a manner that ill enable you to ar$ue a rule is the ratio decidendi or obiter dictum , as the need arises, hen an analo$ous hypothetical situation appears in an e"am )uestion. Hn some rare occasions, Gud$es ill assist you to identify the ratio decidendi or an obiter dictum by couchin$ part of their decision in hypothetical terms. For e"ample, you may come upon a discussion that reads somethin$ li(e this: 9n alternative $round relied on by the appellant as ... and if I ere to decide on that basis I ould probably conclude that... oever, since I am basin$ my decision on the first ar$ument presented by the appellant, I do not have to decide on the basis of this alternative ar$ument. 3resumably, the entire discussion of the alternative ar$ument and the conclusion to hich it ould lead are obiter . While they could, and most li(ely ould, be cited by a counsel hopin$ to rely on a similar ar$ument in a future case, opposin$ counsel should be able to present it as non;bindin$ dicta . This does not mean the ar$ument ould fail, of course. 9n obiter dictum in one case may become ratio decidendi in the ne"t. The fact that the conclusion as obiter dictum ould be a principal plan( in the opposin$ layer#s campai$n to avoid the application of the alternative rule in a later case, hoever.
9cademic +e$al Writin$-7>7