.
Planning your answer
Legal argument is a process of identifying legal issues, connecting it to appropriate laws then applying those laws to the facts. It is a process that weaves a legal answer together. You must find and cite supporting cases and laws to argue your position.
Legal issue
Cases cited to support legal issue
Example model plan
| Issues to be identified | Discussion of appropriate law | Appropriate application of law |
| Issues to be identified |
1. Reasonable foreseeability 2. Salient features |
Discussion of whether it was reasonably foreseeable that Bert would be likely to be injured by GCC's failure to provide safe shopping conditions Discussion of whether the salient features of the case are consistent with the existence of a duty of care Conclusion |
| Make an analogy to cases which recognises a duty of care in these circumstances. Occupiers owe a duty of care to entrants because of their control over the premises. (e.g. the Zaluzna and Nagle cases) | Note that GC is an occupier of premises and thus owes a duty of care to those coming on to the premises | |
| What was the standard of that duty of care, and was it breached? | The standard that is a reasonable, ordinary and prudent person in the circumstances of the occupier | Did GC act as a reasonable occupier of premises? Need to examine the risks of omission, the seriousness of the consequences, the possibility of eliminating those risks and compliance with usual practice (Bolton v Stone, Mercer's case) |
| Damages |
Two tests: (a) causation - 'but for' the breach the damage would not have happened (Chappel, Cork's cases) (b) remoteness - are the injuries reasonably foreseeable? |
Identify damage Would the damage have occured other than as a result of the breach? Is the damage reasonably foreseeable? Conclusion |
| Defences |
Contributory negligence |
Conclude that neither is relevant to the facts |
[Issue] Legal issue
[Case] Cases cited to support legal issue
Example model plan
| Issues to be identified | Discussion of appropriate law | Appropriate application of law |
| Issues to be identified |
1. Reasonable foreseeability 2. Salient features |
Discussion of whether it was [Issue] reasonably foreseeable that Bert would be likely to be injured by [Issue] GCC's failure to provide safe shopping conditions Discussion of whether the salient features of the case are consistent with the existence of a duty of care Conclusion |
| Make an analogy to cases which recognises a duty of care in these circumstances. Occupiers owe a duty of care to entrants because of their control over the premises. (e.g. the [Case] Zaluzna and [Case] Nagle cases) | Note that GC is an occupier of premises and thus owes a duty of care to those coming on to the premises | |
| What was the standard of that duty of care, and was it breached? | The [Issue] standard that is a [Issue] reasonable, ordinary and prudent person in the circumstances of the occupier | Did GC act as a reasonable occupier of premises? Need to examine the risks of omission, the seriousness of the consequences, the possibility of eliminating those risks and compliance with usual practice ([Case] Bolton v Stone, Mercer's case) |
| Damages |
Two tests: (a)[Issue] causation - 'but for' the breach the damage would not have happened (Chappel, Cork's cases) (b) [Issue] remoteness - are the injuries reasonably foreseeable? |
Identify damage Would the damage have occured other than as a result of the breach? Is the damage reasonably foreseeable? Conclusion |
| Defences |
[Issue] Contributory negligence |
Conclude that neither is relevant to the facts |