THE ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF A CASE NOTE Check the house style of the journal to which you intend submitting, ‘Some journals allow footnotes for case notes. Others do not. It will save time if from the beginning you shape your case note in the correct style, Most journals have on-line guides to their house style. The Introduction: this identifies the area of law involved, the significance of the case and its central legal issue. The idea is to hook in the readers, alerting them to a change to or a clarification to or a wrong interpretation of the law. The Introduction provides a reason why they must continue reading. You may like to be provocative by saying what you intend to ‘argue - eg that the case was wrongly decided / it constitutes good precedent / provides needed clarity etc. But be concise. A summary of the law before the case: it makes sense to provide a ‘summary of the existing law so that the reader can understand the significance of the case. This section may involve reference to the common law or part of a statute and the leading cases. It could be that the case you intend discussing is the first to interpret a statute - in which case your introduction may explain what you understand the purpose / mischief behind the statute. NOTE: This section might more logically follow the next section. ‘The facts of the case: this section requires you to walk a tight-rope. This is a summary, clearly reported, avoiding words like Respondent / Applicant / Appellant which could cause the reader to lose track of who is who. Rather opt for descriptors like buyer / seller / employer / lessor etc. Unnecessary facts and dates should be pruned. Significant conflicting evidence should be briefly noted. In this section you are reporting, not judging or evaluating and this is not a long section. Ask yourself whether a detail has any bearing on the case at all. if not, cut. (Although sometimes a graphic detall makes the case memorable, like a dead snail in a ginger- beer bottle, as in Donoghue v Stevenson) Try and tell the story in an engaging way. Presenting the court's decision: As you know, the theoretical key to the common law system of precedent is the distinction between the ratio decidendi and obiter dicta in a case. Your task is to isolate that portion of the judgment which contains the ratio. But as someone said “An obiter dictum in one case may become ratio decidendi in the next.” Similarly, minority judgment may find approval in a subsequent case. So alongside the ratio you may want to refer to a hypothetic consideration raised in biter or to the minority judgment. The significance of the case: this section amplifies the promise made in the Introduction. Here your critical voice must come through and you move from the descriptive factual account to an analytical and evaluative stage. Key questions to answer are: 6.1 Was the court’s decision appropriate?10. 6.2 Does this decision change / conform with existing law? Was the reasoning consistent with previous reasoning in similar cases? Is it likely that the decision will significantly influence existing law? 6.3 Did the court adequately justify its reasoning? Was its interpretation of the law appropriate? Was the reasoning logical / consistent? Did the court consider all omit some issues and arguments? And, if there was omission, does this weaken the merit of the decision? 6.4 What are the policy implications of the decision? Are there alternative approaches which could lead to more appropriate public policy in this area? If your finding is that the decision creates legal precedent, or conversely, upholds legal precedent, what does that mean? What are the implications for the legal and public policy contexts in which this decision sits? Do not assume that judges get it right - it is helpful to remember that they have chosen one approach and that the other party fought the case believing in another approach. You should feel free, if you can justify i with sound reasons, to be politely eritical of the judge. Do not be intimidated by the thought that you are exposing yoursef in print — the worst that can happen is that someone else will join the debate, which will do wonders for your national profile! ‘You may be aware of the guidance given to first-year law students as to how to use a case note — they are told to use the FIRAC model (Facts, Issue, Rule of Law, Application, Conclusion). This is not a bad model to keep in mind for an academic case note. Choose a title which Is descriptive of the content. While itis amusing to read humorous titles, if you want to attract a wide readership the title will be the single most significant way for readers to find it. As NRF rating ‘measures ‘impact’ you might lke to increase your chances of being cited elsewhere with a ttle which is accurate as to its content. CHOOSING THE TOPIC OF YOUR ARTICLE Getting back to basics: why do we write articles? ‘Some suggestions: it's part of our job; we are stimulated by the research and writing process; we want to build an institutional and national reputation; we want to contribute to legal knowledge or theory; we want to influence judges through our wise words; we want to deal with heresy; etc The long-term view: what do you want your research to say about you in 5 years time? Will it be a sustained development of a discrete area or will it be an eclectic range of topics? Will you be reactive or proactive? (Sometimes itis good to react to a newly decided case or other legal development; sometimes itis better to stick to a broader, long-term research profile / reputation) With what research methodology are you comfortable? (Traditional primary | secondary source research; empirical research; case study method; Delphi technique etc). Does the research topic require a methodology that will take too much time?