I.

Legal Reasoning:
- Inductive reasoning: reasoning from particular to the general
- Deductive reasoning (Rule-based): reasoning from the general to the particular
- Reasoning by analogy: use of similar analogous circumstances to assist in the resolution of
the legal issue (eg. facts of precedent is similar to present case)
- Distinguish cases >< Analogy
- Reasoning by policy: Applying a particular rule to a case would create a precedent that is
good for society
(eg. policy behind the rule in the past can apply to present case -> the rule can apply)

Deductive reasoning in the legal context: involves context of previous decisions by the court
-> taking a logical approach to the examination and analysis of the law with a view to
disposing of the legal issue before the court.

II. Construction of an argument:

- Three elements: the premise, the conclusion and arguments

III. Different approaches to legal reasoning:

a. Principle-based judicial method:
- The interaction between principles and rules, limits within arguments are justified
- Consistent with MacCormick’s Theory
- Reasoning process within the context of principles, rules,..
- Not formed by consideration of policy factors
- Within the scope of legitimate judicial power
- Identify rights and obligations from established principles and associated rules
b. Coherence-based incrementalism: The need for incremental development of law based on
coherence
- Identification of ratio decidendi
- Not formed by prospective overulling
- Identify rights and obligations through an analysis of ratio decidendi of different areas
of law
c. Policy-based incrementalism: Analyse the competing policy considerations
- Identify any binding precedent
- Application by analogy of past authority -> legal policy
- Changes of law apply only to the future
d. Policy-based judicial method:
- Focus on outcome rather than the process of legal reasoning

IV. Case of Negligene:

- Prove there is a duty of care which owed by the defendant to the plaintiff
(Whether duty of care is owned?)
- Breach of duty of care
- Causation ?
 - Damage ?
<Step 2-> 4 determined by Court)

V. Ratio Decidendi and Case Analysis

a. MacCormick theory
- A rulling expressly or impliedly given by a judge
- Equal to legal reasoning
b. Goodhart theory
- Determination of material facts that judge based his conclusion on

Obiter dicta: arguments around legal issue

Opinions that not chosen to become ratio decidendi or answer of legal issue-> obiter dicta

VI. Principal legal issue

Whether or not there is a discernible ratio decidendi for the case ?

Step 1: Identification of judges (how many judges)

Step 2: Who is in the joint judgment (majority) ?
If a judge agree with two different judgments ? Only a majority completely agree will make a
discernible ratio decidendi
Step 3: State there is a discernible ratio decidendi or not

Joint judgement:
Step 1: Statement of principle legal issue
Step 2: Ratio decidendi (how many elements to make up in the ratio?)
Step 3: Is one element enough to decide the case?
Step 4: The complication (a judge concurs with both judgement)
-> is another element added to the ratio decidendi ?
-> ratio decidendi of two judgement therefore are different

Evaluation: eg
On the basis of the notes set out above, I believe stronger view is that…. are applying the
ratio decidendi of the case. However, the alternative argument is that a modified version of
the ratio decidendi is being applied to the circumstances, which involves considering
additional elements,.. The reason I do not think this alternative approach is being used is
(joint judgment does not support; final sentence state…)
-> Second legal issue? Is it sufficient to change the result or the ratio ?

Conclusion:
The stronger argument is that there is a discernible ratio ….
It would then by the ratio of the case that would be applied as a precedent in a future case.

VII. Statutory Interpretation Theories

a. Textualist
 - Literal approach
- Meaning of the words (meaning within historical context, actual text)
- Meaning of provision at the same at all time (strict approach)
b. Intentionist
- Court: ascertain the intention of Parliament
- Literal approach of common law (intention of Parliament)
c. Purposive
- Consideration of object/ purpose of the statute
d. Dynamic / Legal process theories

VIII. Statutory Reasoning

1. Legal indeterminacy (ordinary meaning)
a. Semantic ambiguity
- Uncertainty associated with the meaning of particular words
- Courts develop canons of construction: consider whether a statute applies to particular
case
b. Syntatic ambiguity (contextual, precedent, anology, history,..)
- Arising from the structure of a section in statute (relationship between different
sections of statute)

2. Canons of Construction
a. Words of similar meaning: noscitur a sociis

“…if any person sell or expose to sale any of the said articles or other provisions
usually sold in markets in any streets lanes entries or other public passages or places
or other than the places which may be so appointed by the (municipal council)…”

How about sell at a private place?? Only public passages are prohibited

b. Class rule: two more specific words in a provision of statute (to form a class or genus)
c. Express inclusions and implied inclusions

A provision in a statute refers to ‘every factory, shop, office or workroom’. The issue
here is whether this provision excludes a hotel.
-> a hotel would be excluded from the scope of the provision. Factories, shops, offices
and workrooms are all places where work activities are undertaken within the
confines of building premises. A hotel is operated through the use of a building. ->
intend to exclude hotels