Canadian Legal Research and Writing: Beginner Basics That Actually Stick
🧭 What Canadian legal research and writing really is
When people say Canadian legal research and writing, they usually mean two skills that feed each other. First, you find the right law (cases, statutes, regulations). Then, you explain it clearly so another human can use it (a memo, an argument, an exam answer, a letter, or a case brief).
I teach it like this: research is navigation, writing is proof you didn't get lost. If you can show where you found the rule and why it matters, you're doing Canadian legal research and writing correctly.
🧱 The one habit that makes Canadian legal research and writing easier
Before I touch a database, I do one quick thing: I write the question in one sentence.
Not five questions. Not a life story. One sentence.
Then I pull out:
- The key facts that matter (who, what, where, when)
- The legal topic (contract? negligence? Charter? criminal procedure?)
- The "so what" (what decision do we need?)
This habit stops you from reading 40 cases you never needed. It also makes Canadian legal research and writing feel way less like chaos.
🔎 Start with the citation (because it’s your GPS)
A citation is the address of the law. In Canadian legal research and writing, if you can read a citation, you can:
- Find the case faster
- Confirm you're using the right court level
- Spot whether it's reported, unreported, or both
A typical Canadian case citation may include:
- Case name (style of cause)
- Court + year + decision number (neutral citation)
- Law report citation (like S.C.R. or D.L.R.)
- Database ID (like CanLII)
Example format (not the only format):
- Case Name, 2010 SCC 1, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 1
In practice, I treat neutral citations as the "cleanest" starting point, then I add reporter citations if I need them.
🧾 Canadian legal research and writing: case reporters & abbreviations (beginner table)
Here's the point-form "law report alphabet soup" in a way you can actually use. In Canadian legal research and writing, you'll see these abbreviations in older cases, textbooks, and headnotes.
| Abbreviation | Stands for | What it usually contains |
|---|---|---|
| A.C.W.S. | All-Canada Weekly Summaries | Weekly case digests/summaries (not full reported decisions) |
| B.C.L.R. | British Columbia Law Reports | Reported decisions from B.C. courts |
| C.C.C. | Canadian Criminal Cases | Criminal case reporting (often cited in criminal work) |
| C.T.R. | Canada Tax Reports | Tax-related case reporting (varies by source/course outline) |
| D.L.R. | Dominion Law Reports | Major Canadian cases across many areas of law |
| O.A.C. | Ontario Appeal Cases | Ontario appellate-level decisions (Court of Appeal/Divisional Court) |
| O.M.B.R. | Ontario Municipal Board Reports | Decisions involving the Ontario Municipal Board (planning/municipal) |
| O.R. | Ontario Reports | Reported Ontario cases (wide range of subjects) |
| R.S.O. | Revised Statutes of Ontario | A consolidation of Ontario statutes (a "compiled" set) |
| S.C.R. | Supreme Court Reports | Reported decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada |
Quick reality check I teach early: databases may show abbreviations with periods or without. Don't panic. Focus on matching the letters, the court, and the year.
📚 Digests vs full reports vs databases (know what you’re holding)
In Canadian legal research and writing, not every "citation-looking thing" is a full judgment.
Here's the simple breakdown:
- Digests (like A.C.W.S.): summaries of cases (useful for scanning fast, but not the "official" full reasoning)
- Reporters (like S.C.R., D.L.R., O.R.): published/compiled decisions in report series
- Databases (like CanLII): searchable platforms that host decisions, statutes, and sometimes commentary
My rule: if I'm relying on a legal principle, I prefer reading the full decision (or at least the key sections), not just the summary.
🏛️ Canadian legal research and writing: finding cases fast (my no-drama workflow)
When you're under time pressure (exam, assignment, real file), I use this sequence:
- Start with the best identifier
- Neutral citation (if you have it)
- Case name + court + year (if you don't)
- Use a dependable free source first
- CanLII is the first stop for a lot of Canadian legal research and writing.
- Then I confirm if there's a reporter citation or parallel citations.
- Check if it's still good law
- Look for "cited by," "note up," or treatment indicators.
- If the case got overruled or heavily criticized, your argument may collapse.
- Save what matters
- Copy the neutral citation, key paragraphs, and the ratio you're using.
- Put it into your case brief template (I give you one below).
If you like learning by video, the Law Society of Saskatchewan has a clean beginner series on searching and noting up CanLII, and it even points to CanLII's YouTube channel for more. (I link it below in Sources.)
🧲 Binding decision vs persuasive decision (the court hierarchy matters)
Let's make the "binding decision" idea simple.
A binding decision is one your judge must follow when:
- The prior case comes from a higher court (or the same court in the right situation), and
- The material facts and legal issue match closely enough
A persuasive decision can still be powerful, but it's not mandatory. It's "this is smart and relevant," not "you must do this."
In Canadian legal research and writing, you don't just collect cases like Pokémon. You build a ladder:
- Highest authority cases at the top
- Directly-on-point cases next
- Persuasive extras last
🧠 Canadian legal research and writing: ratio decidendi vs obiter dicta
This is the skill that upgrades your writing overnight.
- Ratio decidendi = the reason for deciding (the legal rule that actually drives the result)
- Obiter dicta = "words by the way" (helpful commentary, but not the rule that decided the case)
When I read a case, I ask:
- "If I removed this statement, would the result change?"
If yes, it's probably ratio. If no, it may be obiter.
Why this matters for Canadian legal research and writing: your professor, your examiner, and your future judge want to know what the case actually decided, not what it talked about.
📝 Disposition (where the court tells you what happens)
The disposition is the court's "so here's the order" part.
It might say:
- "Appeal allowed" or "appeal dismissed"
- "Judgment set aside"
- "New trial ordered"
- "Costs awarded"
In Canadian legal research and writing, you quote or paraphrase the disposition carefully, because it's the cleanest proof of the outcome.
🧩 Issues (how I turn facts into answerable legal questions)
"Issues" are the specific questions the court must answer to decide the case.
Good issue phrasing:
- Tight
- Neutral
- Answerable
Examples:
- "Did the accused have a reasonable expectation of privacy?"
- "Was the contract formed despite the missing signature?"
- "Did the tribunal breach procedural fairness?"
This is the heart of Canadian legal research and writing. If your issues are messy, your research and writing will be messy too.
🧪 Law of evidence (proving facts in a real hearing)
Evidence law answers: How do we prove facts in a trial or proceeding?
Even in a beginner overview, I always remember:
- Evidence rules protect fairness and reliability
- Not everything "true" is admissible
- Process matters as much as content
For practical starters, evidence often includes:
- Witness testimony
- Documents and records
- Expert opinions (with limits)
- Admissions
In Canadian legal research and writing, you don't just say "the facts show." You show how the facts get proven.
🧷 Canadian legal research and writing: statutes vs regulations (don’t mix them up)
Statutes and regulations travel together, but they are not the same thing.
- Statutes (Acts) are passed by a legislature (Parliament or a provincial legislature).
- Regulations are made under authority given by a statute (delegated law).
If you're researching Ontario statutes, you'll often use:
- Ontario e-Laws
If you're researching federal laws, you'll often use:
- Justice Laws Website (Government of Canada)
In Canadian legal research and writing, I always cite both:
- The enabling statute section (the "power to make regs" part), and
- The specific regulation section that applies
🏷️ Style of cause (party names that you must get right)
The style of cause is just the official naming of the parties.
It matters because:
- It's how databases index cases
- It's how readers confirm they're looking at the right decision
- It signals the type of case (R v. X is criminal; X v. Y is typically civil)
When you're writing, be consistent. If the case name is long, I introduce it once, then shorten it properly.
✍️ Canadian legal research and writing: the beginner case brief template I actually use
A case brief is how I turn a 40-page judgment into something I can use in 90 seconds.
Here's my core template:
- Citation: (neutral + reporter if available)
- Court + date:
- Facts: 4–6 lines max (only material facts)
- Issues: 1–3 clean questions
- Rule (Ratio): the legal test or principle
- Application: how the court applied the rule to facts
- Disposition: result/order
- My takeaway: 1–2 lines on how I'll use it
This is Canadian legal research and writing in a nutshell: find the rule, prove it, apply it, and show your work.
✅ Canadian legal research and writing checklist (students, beginners, candidates)
Use this as your "don't-forget-anything" list.
Research checklist
- I wrote the legal question in one sentence.
- I searched a reliable source (start with CanLII if appropriate).
- I captured the neutral citation and court level.
- I confirmed the case is still good law (note up / cited by).
- I saved pinpoint paragraphs for the ratio.
Writing checklist
- I stated the rule in plain language.
- I used the ratio, not random obiter.
- I used short paragraphs and transition words (however, therefore, in addition).
- I ended with a clear conclusion that answers the issue.
📌 Beginner law in point form
Here's a beginner-friendly reference that fits Canadian legal research and writing.
- A.C.W.S. stands for: All-Canada Weekly Summaries
- B.C.L.R. stands for: British Columbia Law Reports
- C.C.C. stands for: Canadian Criminal Cases
- C.T.R. stands for: Canada Tax Reports
- D.L.R. stands for: Dominion Law Reports
- O.A.C. stands for: Ontario Appeal Cases
- O.M.B.R. stands for: Ontario Municipal Board Reports
- O.R. stands for: Ontario Reports
- R.S.O. stands for: Revised Statutes of Ontario
- S.C.R. stands for: Supreme Court Reports
- Neutral citation: a court-issued citation that doesn't depend on a report series.
- Binding decision: an existing decision a judge must follow when the material facts and issues are sufficiently similar.
- Binding law: law the court must follow (statutes, regulations, and binding precedent).
- Disposition: the court's final order at the end of the case (what the court decides happens).
- Issues: the specific legal questions the court must answer to reach a decision.
- Law of evidence: rules about how facts are proven in a trial or proceeding.
- Obiter dicta: Latin for "words by the way."
- Ratio decidendi: Latin for "reasons for deciding."
- Regulations: rules made under authority granted by a statute.
- Style of cause: the official names of the parties to an action.
- Substantive law: legal rights and obligations that can be enforced through legal action.
- Procedural law: rules that govern the legal process (how a case moves through the system).
🔗 Sources & references
Use these as your "authority anchors" for Canadian legal research and writing:
- CanLII (Canadian Legal Information Institute) (CanLII)
- Ontario e-Laws (official Ontario statutes & regulations) (Ontario)
- Justice Laws Website (official federal laws) (Department of Justice Canada)
- CanLII tutorial series (Law Society of Saskatchewan) (lawsociety.sk.ca)
- McGill Guide overview (Carleton University Library) (library.carleton.ca)
❓ FAQs (People Also Ask style)
❓ What is Canadian legal research and writing in one sentence?
It's the skill of finding Canadian law and explaining it clearly with proper authority and structure.
❓ Is CanLII enough for Canadian legal research and writing?
For many student tasks, yes. For niche areas, paid tools and library resources help a lot.
❓ What does A.C.W.S. mean in a citation?
It refers to All-Canada Weekly Summaries, which is a digest/summary source.
❓ What's the difference between a law report and a database?
A law report is a publication series; a database is a searchable platform that may contain many series.
❓ What does S.C.R. stand for in Canada?
Supreme Court Reports, a major reporter for Supreme Court of Canada decisions.
❓ What is a neutral citation and why do I care?
It's a court-issued citation that helps you find the case even without a reporter.
❓ What's the fastest way to find a case?
Use the neutral citation if you have it; otherwise use the case name plus year and court.
❓ How do I know if a case is binding?
Check the court hierarchy and whether the issue and material facts match closely.
❓ What is ratio decidendi in plain English?
It's the legal rule that actually decided the case.
❓ What is obiter dicta in plain English?
It's helpful commentary that didn't decide the case.
❓ What does "disposition" mean at the end of a case?
It's the final order (allowed, dismissed, new trial, costs, and so on).
❓ What are "issues" in a case brief?
They are the specific legal questions the court answered to reach the decision.
❓ What's the difference between substantive and procedural law?
Substantive law is the rights/obligations; procedural law is the process rules.
❓ Are regulations the same as statutes?
No. Regulations are made under authority given by a statute.
❓ What is the "style of cause"?
It's the official case name listing the parties.
❓ How long should a student case brief be?
Usually one page or less, unless your instructor demands more detail.
❓ How do I avoid quoting the wrong part of a case?
Use pinpoint paragraphs and focus on ratio, not stray commentary.
❓ What should I do if I can't find the case in a reporter?
Use the neutral citation and a reliable database version, then verify court and date.
🚀 Conclusion: my simple plan for Canadian legal research and writing
If you want Canadian legal research and writing to feel predictable, keep it mechanical. Start with one clean question, find the best citation, confirm court level, note up the case, pull the ratio, and write like a normal person who wants to be understood.
If you want help turning this into a printable one-page cheat sheet (or adapting it for your LSO-style exam answers), use my contact me page.
Fact-check notes
- ACWS/A.C.W.S. is used for All-Canada Weekly Summaries, and Canadian citation guides discuss it as a digest abbreviation. (CanLII)
- Westlaw Canada's case law PDF lists B.C.L.R., O.A.C., O.M.B.R., and O.R. as report series abbreviations. (westlawcanada.com)
- Justice Canada explains that regulations are made under authority delegated by an Act (not passed directly like statutes). (Ministère de la Justice)
- Ontario e-Laws is Ontario's official online source for statutes and regulations. (greatguides.lso.ca)
- COAL-style guidance discusses abbreviation formatting choices (periods/no periods) for digests like ACWS. (CanLII)
Case study: Quick note: I’m teaching legal concepts for learning and exam prep—not giving legal advice.
If you're new to legal research and writing, Donoghue v Stevenson is the case I use when I want you to "feel" how common law is built—one decision at a time. It's famous because it helped shape the modern idea of duty of care in negligence. (uni-trier.de)
Today I'm going to walk you through it step by step, exactly like I'd coach a student to brief it, pull out the ratio decidendi, spot the obiter dicta, and turn it into a clean exam paragraph.
🧭 Why Donoghue v Stevenson still matters
Here's the big picture:
- Before Donoghue v Stevenson, the law often felt like: "If you don't have a contract, good luck."
- After Donoghue v Stevenson, courts had a stronger way to say: "Even without a contract, you may owe care if harm is reasonably foreseeable."
This case is also where people learn the classic "neighbour principle" associated with Lord Atkin's reasoning. (uni-trier.de)
🗂️ Donoghue v Stevenson case ID and citation
When you write about this case, you'll commonly see:
- Donoghue v Stevenson
- [1932] AC 562 (Appeal Cases report citation) (uni-trier.de)
- It's a House of Lords decision (top UK court at the time). (uni-trier.de)
Canadian exam reality: UK House of Lords decisions are usually persuasive, not automatically binding in Canada—but they're extremely influential in common-law development, especially historically. (Supreme Court of Canada Decisions)
🧪 The Donoghue v Stevenson story in plain language
The story you'll remember (because it's weird enough to stick):
- A woman (May Donoghue) drinks ginger beer from an opaque bottle.
- After some of it is poured out, a decomposed snail appears.
- She says she becomes ill.
- She sues the manufacturer (Stevenson), even though she didn't buy the drink herself (so she had no contract with him). (uni-trier.de)
That "no contract" detail is the entire legal drama.
🧱 Step 1: Lock down the key facts (only what matters)
When I brief Donoghue v Stevenson, I keep facts tight. Judges care about legally relevant facts, not the novel.
Legally relevant facts:
- Product: ginger beer in an opaque bottle
- Alleged defect/contaminant: snail in the bottle
- Harm: illness
- Relationship gap: no direct contract between consumer and manufacturer (uni-trier.de)
Tip I teach students: If you can't explain the fact in one sentence that begins with "This matters because…", it probably doesn't belong in your brief.
🧾 Step 2: Track the procedure (what stage is the court deciding?)
Here's the common trap: beginners think the court "proved the snail existed."
Not really.
At this stage, the court is dealing with whether the claim can even proceed as a matter of law—whether the pleaded facts could give rise to a duty. (uni-trier.de)
So you should frame it like:
- "Assuming the pleaded facts are true, does the manufacturer owe a duty of care to the ultimate consumer?"
That's the legal gateway question.
❓ Step 3: Identify the legal issues (the court’s questions)
I usually write the core issue like this:
Issue (Donoghue v Stevenson):
Does a manufacturer owe a duty of care in negligence to a consumer who did not buy the product directly (no contract), where harm is reasonably foreseeable? (uni-trier.de)
You can split that into two exam-friendly "sub-issues":
- Can negligence duty exist without contract?
- If yes, who counts as someone the manufacturer must consider?
📜 Step 4: The “old problem” Donoghue v Stevenson had to solve
Why was this even a fight?
Because older approaches often tied liability to:
- contract, or
- narrow categories of relationships
But mass-produced goods created a new reality: manufacturers make products for strangers, at scale, and the consumer can't inspect everything.
So Donoghue v Stevenson becomes a turning point: it modernizes responsibility for modern life. (media.sclqld.org.au)
🧠 Step 5: The holding in Donoghue v Stevenson (what the court decided)
Holding (in student language):
Yes—a manufacturer can owe a duty of care to the ultimate consumer, even without a contract, when the product is intended to reach the consumer without reasonable opportunity for intermediate inspection and harm is foreseeable. (uni-trier.de)
That's your binding core of the decision (within its jurisdiction). Everything else supports it.
🧠 Step 6: Ratio decidendi vs obiter dicta (what you MUST extract)
This is where students level up fast.
✅ The ratio decidendi (the “reason for deciding”)
Ratio (practical version):
A duty of care arises where a person's actions (like manufacturing a consumable product) foreseeably affect people who are closely and directly impacted—so care must be taken to avoid causing harm. (uni-trier.de)
This is the part you treat as the decision's core legal rule.
💬 The obiter dicta (helpful, but not the core)
In Donoghue v Stevenson, Lord Atkin's broader language about who your "neighbour" is becomes widely quoted. It's hugely influential, but in your writing you should still treat the ratio as the working rule the court applied to decide the case. (Practical Law)
👥 Step 7: The “neighbour principle” (why everyone remembers this case)
This is the famous idea students quote:
- You must take reasonable care to avoid acts/omissions you can reasonably foresee would likely injure your "neighbour."
- A "neighbour" is someone closely and directly affected by what you do. (Practical Law)
Teaching tip: Don't quote it like a fortune cookie. Tie it to the facts:
- The manufacturer can foresee a consumer drinking the product.
- The consumer can't inspect inside the opaque bottle.
- So the consumer sits inside the "foreseeable and proximate" group.
⚖️ Step 8: Is Donoghue v Stevenson binding in Canada?
Here's the straight truth:
- In Canada, Supreme Court of Canada decisions bind Canadian courts.
- UK decisions like Donoghue v Stevenson are typically persuasive, not binding.
But Canadian negligence law grew from this tradition and later developed its own structured duty tests. (Supreme Court of Canada Decisions)
🇨🇦 Step 9: How Canada structures duty of care today (the Anns/Cooper approach)
Canadian courts often analyze duty of care through a structured framework associated with cases like Cooper v Hobart (and related duty-of-care jurisprudence). (Supreme Court of Canada Decisions)
At a high level (student-friendly):
- Is the harm reasonably foreseeable?
- Is there sufficient proximity (a close relationship) to justify a duty?
- Are there broader policy reasons to deny or limit the duty? (Supreme Court of Canada Decisions)
How Donoghue v Stevenson fits: It's one of the foundation stones for the foreseeability + proximity way of thinking.
🧾 Step 10: Build a clean case brief for Donoghue v Stevenson
When I'm training beginners, I use a one-page brief format. Here's the exact structure.
🧾 Donoghue v Stevenson — Case Brief (filled)
Case Name: Donoghue v Stevenson
Court / Year: House of Lords, 1932 (uni-trier.de)
Citation: [1932] AC 562 (media.sclqld.org.au)
Material Facts:
A consumer drank ginger beer from an opaque bottle and alleged illness after a snail was found. The consumer had no contract with the manufacturer. (uni-trier.de)
Issue:
Does a manufacturer owe a duty of care in negligence to an ultimate consumer who has no contract with the manufacturer? (uni-trier.de)
Holding:
Yes. A duty of care can exist even without a contract in these circumstances. (uni-trier.de)
Ratio Decidendi:
A duty of care arises where harm to the consumer is reasonably foreseeable and the consumer is closely/directly affected by the manufacturer's act of putting a consumable product into circulation without reasonable opportunity for inspection. (uni-trier.de)
Obiter (if needed):
Broad statements about the "neighbour principle" that guide how foreseeability/proximity should be understood. (Practical Law)
Disposition (what the court did):
Allowed the claim to proceed on the duty point (opening the door for negligence liability in principle). (uni-trier.de)
🧾 Step 11: Put Donoghue v Stevenson into an IRAC exam paragraph
Here's how I'd write it under time pressure:
Issue: Whether the manufacturer owed a duty of care to the consumer despite no contract.
Rule: Under Donoghue v Stevenson, a manufacturer may owe a duty of care to the ultimate consumer where harm is reasonably foreseeable and the consumer is closely/directly affected, especially where the product reaches the consumer without meaningful inspection. (uni-trier.de)
Application: The manufacturer produced a consumable product intended for consumers. The consumer could not inspect the contents of an opaque bottle, and harm from contamination was foreseeable.
Conclusion: A duty of care can exist even without contract, so the negligence claim is not barred at the duty stage. (uni-trier.de)
Teaching tip: In exams, clarity beats fancy. Don't over-quote. Apply.
🔍 Step 12: “Noting up” Donoghue v Stevenson (how you research like a pro)
If you want to research properly, you don't stop at "I found the case." You note it up:
- Has it been followed?
- Limited?
- Distinguished?
- Criticized?
Canadian-friendly habit: If you're working in Canadian materials, you'd also look at how Canadian courts frame duty of care (e.g., via Cooper v Hobart and related cases). (Supreme Court of Canada Decisions)
⚠️ Step 13: Common student mistakes I see (and how you avoid them)
- Treating facts as proven. At duty stages, courts often assume pleaded facts.
- Mixing ratio and obiter. Don't build your whole argument on a pretty quote.
- Forgetting jurisdiction. UKHL is persuasive in Canada, not automatically binding.
- Writing a "history essay" instead of legal analysis. You need Issue → Rule → Application → Conclusion.
✅ Step 14: Mini practice (so you actually learn it)
Try these quick prompts:
- One sentence: What is the issue in Donoghue v Stevenson?
- Two sentences: State the ratio in your own words.
- Three sentences: Apply it to a modern scenario (e.g., sealed food container, defective battery pack, contaminated supplement).
If you can do that, you're not memorizing—you're thinking like a lawyer/paralegal candidate.
🧾 Exam friendly quick tables
“Case Brief Snapshot” table
| Brief Element | Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) |
|---|---|
| Issue | Duty of care without contract between manufacturer and consumer |
| Holding | Yes, a duty can exist in negligence |
| Ratio | Foreseeable harm + close/direct effect supports duty of care |
| Obiter | Neighbour principle language that guides the reasoning |
❓ FAQs: Donoghue v Stevenson Case Study
❓ What is Donoghue v Stevenson about?
It's a 1932 negligence case about whether a manufacturer can owe a duty of care to a consumer without a contract. (uni-trier.de)
❓ Why is Donoghue v Stevenson so famous?
It helped shape the modern concept of duty of care and the neighbour principle. (media.sclqld.org.au)
❓ What court decided Donoghue v Stevenson?
The House of Lords (UK) decided it in 1932. (uni-trier.de)
❓ What is the citation for Donoghue v Stevenson?
A common report citation is [1932] AC 562. (media.sclqld.org.au)
❓ What is the main legal issue in Donoghue v Stevenson?
Whether a duty of care exists in negligence between manufacturer and consumer without contract. (uni-trier.de)
❓ What was the holding in Donoghue v Stevenson?
The court recognized that a manufacturer can owe a duty of care to the ultimate consumer. (uni-trier.de)
❓ What is the ratio decidendi of Donoghue v Stevenson?
That foreseeable harm to a closely/directly affected consumer can create a duty of care in negligence. (uni-trier.de)
❓ What does “neighbour principle” mean in Donoghue v Stevenson?
It's the idea that you must take care to avoid foreseeable harm to people closely and directly affected by your actions. (Practical Law)
❓ Is Donoghue v Stevenson binding in Canada?
Generally it's persuasive (UK), while Canadian courts are bound by Canadian appellate authority, especially the SCC. (Supreme Court of Canada Decisions)
❓ How does Donoghue v Stevenson connect to Canadian duty of care analysis?
It supports the foreseeability/proximity style of reasoning that later becomes structured in Canadian cases. (Supreme Court of Canada Decisions)
❓ Did the court “prove” the snail existed?
At the duty stage, courts often assume pleaded facts to decide whether the law recognizes a duty. (uni-trier.de)
❓ What’s the difference between ratio and obiter in this case?
Ratio is the legal rule necessary to decide duty; obiter is broader commentary like famous explanatory language. (media.sclqld.org.au)
❓ How do I write a case brief for Donoghue v Stevenson?
Use: facts → issue → holding → ratio → obiter → disposition, then add a one-line significance statement.
❓ What is the best exam approach for Donoghue v Stevenson?
Use IRAC: state the duty issue, give the rule, apply to facts, conclude duty can exist. (uni-trier.de)
❓ What’s a quick modern example like Donoghue v Stevenson?
A sealed food item contaminated during manufacturing where the consumer can't inspect before consuming.
✅ Conclusion
If you can brief Donoghue v Stevenson cleanly, you can brief almost anything—because this case forces you to separate facts, issues, ratio, and application like a pro.
📚 Sources & further reading
- BAILII – Donoghue v Stevenson (UKHL) (uni-trier.de)
- Supreme Court Library Queensland – Donoghue v Stevenson resource (PDF) (media.sclqld.org.au)
- Oxford Reference – Neighbour principle (Practical Law)
- SCC – Cooper v Hobart (duty of care framework reference) (Supreme Court of Canada Decisions)
