Legal Reasoning

Christopher Enright

The Donkey
When fishes flew and forests walked The tattered outlaw of the earth,
And figs grew upon thorn, Of ancient crooked will;
Some moment when the moon was blood Starve, scourge, deride me: I am dumb,
Then surely I was born. I keep my secret still.

With monstrous head and sickening cry Fools! For I also had my hour;
And ears like errant wings, One far fierce hour and sweet:
The devil’s walking parody There was a shout about my ears,
On all four-footed things. And palms before my feet.
G K Chesterton
 Sinch
for smarter lawyers
!
Sinch
Business Name Sinch
Firm Name Sinch Software Pty Ltd
Seminars www.sinch.com.au
Products www.sinch.com.au
Books www.legalskills.com.au
Email [email protected]
!
First Edition 2011
Second Edition 2015
Copyright © Christopher Enright 2015

Cover Design
Designer Howard Randell
Firm Eye for Image
Website www.eyeforimage.com.au

National Library of Australia ‘Cataloguing in Publication’ Entry

Author Enright, Christopher 1947 – author
Title Legal Reasoning / Christopher Enright
Edition 2nd edition
ISBN 978-0-9943711-5-7 (paperback)
Series Legal Skills Series
Notes and Index Includes bibliographical references
Subjects Law – methodology
Dewey Number 340.11

A nation which ever ceases to cherish the memory of Sir Thomas More will not only have
mislaid its measure of human greatness but it will have forgotten an important lesson that
with so much blood and tears, it has ever struggled to learn. For More was the victim as he
was indeed the exponent of the stubborn illusion that any human institution possesses a
monopoly of truth or the power to impose its dogmas upon all who are subject to its man-
made authority.
ST Bindoff (1952) Tudor England Penguin: London p 153
Legal Skills Series

Begin at the beginning,’ the King said, very gravely, ‘and go on till you come to
the end: then stop.1

This book is part of a series of textbooks that explain legal skills. The table
below sets out the books in the series.

Authors Title
Christopher Enright Legal Reasoning
Christopher Enright Legal Method
Christopher Enright Legal Writing
Christopher Enright Proof of Facts
Christopher Enright A Method for Interpreting Statutes
Christopher Enright Drafting Readable Statutes
Christopher Enright & Clare Cappa Fundamentals of Legal Research

1. Lewis Carroll Alice in Wonderland

iii
Preface

What This Book is About

This book, Legal Reasoning, is both a companion to and an underpinning of the
author’s book Legal Method. Legal Method, as the title professes, describes methods
or techniques for working with law. Legal Reasoning seeks to justify the techniques
proposed in Legal Method by demonstrating that they are based on sound reasoning.

In approaching the task, the author has worked from the ground up. This entails
starting with first principles and working through to a logical understanding of what
the tasks for working with legal materials entail. This logical understanding is the
science on which the technology, constituted by legal method or legal skills, is
constructed.

While this book can stand on its own as a work of philosophy, its motivation did not
derive from any purely intellectual consideration (although the writing of it was a time
of great joy). Of course it may assist in debate on the questions it covers, even by
throwing up errors that push others towards truth. However, the motive that initiated
the writing was to further the author’s crusade for legal method to be taken seriously.
At present lawyers work with legal materials with a low level of skills gleaned by
immersion or osmosis but not by direct instruction. Law schools either do not teach the
skills or teach ways of performing skills that just do not work. Until lawyer start to
take skills seriously, law schools will function well below optimum and their graduates
will similarly perform sub-optimally when they work with law. This lack of direct
instruction in skills is the reason that so many legal textbooks are difficult to read, as
are many judgments from the top of the hierarchy of courts down. It is also a likely
reason that cases in court are so beset with cost and delay.

Giving Thanks
In any major endeavour one is always heavily in debt. In my case the emotional
creditors include a family who has given me so much love and colleagues who have
given me so much support. I also have to thank my nephew Stephen for his assistance
with and input into the chapter on probability and the part dealing with chaos theory.

There is also a major intellectual liability that I can only acknowledge since I do not
have the means to discharge it. The spirit of this inquiry came directly from Professor
Fred D’Agostino, then my lecturer in philosophy at the University of New England
and now Director of Studies in the Faculty of Arts at the University of Queensland.
My attending Professor Fred D’Agostino’s classes was a direct fulfillment of the
prophecy that when the pupil is ready the teacher will appear. He guided me in the
method or way of thinking that characterises this book. As with most great teachers,
his spirit endures even long after his precise words have been mislaid. Needless to say,
any errors or shortcomings in my reasoning in this book reflect the times when I was
not paying full attention in his lectures.

v
 vi Preface

Finally I have to thank by friend Terry O’Donohue who read the manuscript for me
several times. His painstaking comments on this manuscript saved me from much
grief.

Footnotes and Commentaries

This book uses a two-part system for notes, footnotes and commentaries. Broadly but
not absolutely, footnotes provide citations for sources, while commentaries provide
further reading for, and add-ons to, the discussion that is already in the text. Most but
not all chapters have a final section entitled ‘Commentary’. Each specific commentary
under this heading is linked to a footnote. Commentaries contain additional reading
and comments on the subject matter in hand. And in cases where a citation for the text
is long and cumbersome, the citation may be moved to a commentary. Generally
citations for the text are put in a footnote. If, however, the citation is long and
cumbersome, as noted above, it may be moved to a commentary.

Christopher Enright
6 June 2015
Newcastle
Author

My reason, the physician to my love, Angry that his prescriptions are not kept.1

Christopher Enright is qualified as a barrister, solicitor and chartered accountant. Chris

has a Master of Commerce (Management) from the University of New England.

In a former life Chris lectured in law and management at various universities. Much of
his research time as an academic was working in the much-neglected field of legal
skills.

This research was directed to the major tasks with law that involved reasoning. These
tasks are organising law, making law, interpreting law, applying law to facts, proving
facts and exercising a discretion. The aim was to simplify and systematise these tasks
by developing a step-by-step guide to performing them. The ideal was that this guide
was as close as possible to an algorithm. The ultimate goal was to enable law schools
to train lawyers so that they could understand these tasks and, when required, perform
them effectively and efficiently.

1. William Shakespeare Sonnet 147

vii
Contents

Legal Skills Series............................................................................. iii

Preface ................................................................................................. v
Author ................................................................................................... vii
Contents............................................................................................... ix
Table of Legislation .......................................................................... xvii
Table of Cases.................................................................................... xxi
Table of Diagrams ............................................................................. xxix
Table of Foreign Language Expressions.................................... xxxiii
Labels ................................................................................................... xxxv
Summary.............................................................................................. xli
Introduction ............................................................................................ xli
A. Rationality and Irrationality .............................................................. xli
B. Methods of Reasoning ....................................................................... xlii
Logical Reasoning .................................................................................. xlii
Policy...................................................................................................... xliv
Analysing Ambiguity ............................................................................. xliv
Observing Facts ...................................................................................... xliv
C. Tasks with Law.................................................................................. xliv
Structuring Law ...................................................................................... xlv
Forming Law .......................................................................................... xlvi
Using Law .............................................................................................. liv
Commentary ........................................................................................... xlvii

Part 1 Introduction
Chapter 1 Outline............................................................................... 1
Purpose of this Book .............................................................................. 1
Legal Tasks............................................................................................. 1
Legal Reasoning ..................................................................................... 2
Forming Law .......................................................................................... 2
Using Law .............................................................................................. 8
Irrationally .............................................................................................. 13
Legal Method ......................................................................................... 13
Summary ................................................................................................ 14
Commentary ........................................................................................... 14

Part 2 Rationality
2.1: Introduction
Chapter 2 Rationality ........................................................................ 15
Introduction ............................................................................................ 15
Thinking Rationally................................................................................ 16

! xi
x Contents

Thinking Irrationally............................................................................... 17
Commentary............................................................................................ 18

2.2: Structuring Law

Chapter 3 Structuring Legal Rules ............................................... 19
Introduction............................................................................................. 19
A. Micro Analysis: Relationships Within Legal Rules........................... 19
Elements.................................................................................................. 19
Consequences.......................................................................................... 23
Conditional Statements ........................................................................... 23
B. Macro Analysis: Relationships Between Legal Rules ....................... 28
Commentary............................................................................................ 29
2.3: Logical Reasoning
Chapter 4 Logical Reasoning ......................................................... 33
Introduction............................................................................................. 33
Deduction................................................................................................ 33
Induction ................................................................................................. 34
Abduction................................................................................................ 35
Analogy................................................................................................... 36
Probability............................................................................................... 36
Comparison............................................................................................. 37

Chapter 5 Deduction ......................................................................... 41

Introduction............................................................................................. 41
Nature ..................................................................................................... 41
Applying Law ......................................................................................... 44
Interpreting Law ..................................................................................... 50
Ascertaining Values................................................................................ 55
Ascertaining Causal Laws ...................................................................... 55
Proving Facts .......................................................................................... 55
Commentary............................................................................................ 60

Chapter 6 Induction........................................................................... 63
Introduction............................................................................................. 63
Nature ..................................................................................................... 63
Ascertaining Values................................................................................ 66
Ascertaining Causal Laws ...................................................................... 69
Proving Facts .......................................................................................... 70
Proving Facts: Patterns of Behaviour ..................................................... 71
Proving Facts: Individual Behaviour ...................................................... 72
Proving Facts: General Behaviour.......................................................... 74
Common Errors....................................................................................... 68
Commentary............................................................................................ 68
 Contents xi

Chapter 7 Abduction......................................................................... 81
Introduction ............................................................................................ 81
Nature ..................................................................................................... 81
Uses ........................................................................................................ 82
Commentary ........................................................................................... 84

Chapter 8 Analogy............................................................................. 87
Introduction ............................................................................................ 87
Nature ..................................................................................................... 87
Making Common Law............................................................................ 89
Commentary ........................................................................................... 95

Chapter 9 Probability........................................................................ 99
Introduction ............................................................................................ 99
Measuring Probability ............................................................................ 104
Applying Probability .............................................................................. 105
Assigning Probability ............................................................................. 107
Deriving Probability ............................................................................... 110
Fallacies in Probability ........................................................................... 118
Commentary ........................................................................................... 120
2.4: Policy
2.4.1!Introduction!
Chapter 10 Policy .............................................................................. 123
Introduction ............................................................................................ 123
Levels of Policy...................................................................................... 127
Basis of Policy........................................................................................ 129
Nature of Policy...................................................................................... 130
Model for Policy..................................................................................... 133
Derivatives of Policy .............................................................................. 139
Commentary ........................................................................................... 139

2.4.2!Net!Benefit!
Chapter 11 Nature of Net Benefit .................................................. 141
Introduction ............................................................................................ 141
Net Benefit Rule ..................................................................................... 141
Changeover Costs and Benefits.............................................................. 147
Operating Costs and Benefits ................................................................. 152
Illustration .............................................................................................. 154
Commentary ........................................................................................... 155

Chapter 12 Measurement of Net Benefit..................................... 159

Introduction ............................................................................................ 159
Methods of Measurement ....................................................................... 160
Problems of Measurement...................................................................... 162
Attempts to Alleviate Problems ............................................................. 163
xii Contents

Conclusion .............................................................................................. 166

Commentary............................................................................................ 167

2.4.3!Components!of!Policy:!Cause!and!Effects!
Chapter 13 Cause .............................................................................. 169
Introduction............................................................................................. 169
Determinism............................................................................................ 170
Science ................................................................................................... 172
Nature of Causation ................................................................................ 178
Commentary............................................................................................ 183

Chapter 14 Cause: Explanatory Theories ................................... 187

Introduction............................................................................................. 187
A. General Theories of Behaviour.......................................................... 187
B. Theories of Complex Behaviour ........................................................ 190
Complex Systems ................................................................................... 190
Chaos Theory.......................................................................................... 201
Catastrophe Theory................................................................................. 204
Adaptive Behaviour ................................................................................ 205
System Accidents.................................................................................... 208
Internal Conflict...................................................................................... 210
C. Theories of Legal Compliance ........................................................... 213
Commentary............................................................................................ 229

Chapter 15 Cause: Responding to Uncertainty......................... 235

Introduction............................................................................................. 235
Expected Value ....................................................................................... 235
Review of Legislation............................................................................. 237
Review of Judicial Decisions.................................................................. 243
Disjointed Incrementalism...................................................................... 244
Precautionary Principle........................................................................... 246
Defensive Design.................................................................................... 248
Commentary............................................................................................ 248

Chapter 16 Effects ............................................................................. 251

Introduction............................................................................................. 251
Continuation of Effects........................................................................... 255
Operation of Effects................................................................................ 255
Function of Effects.................................................................................. 261
Prediction of Effects ............................................................................... 265
Commentary............................................................................................ 268

2.4.4!Components!of!Policy:!Values!
Chapter 17 Values.............................................................................. 271
Introduction............................................................................................. 271
Nature of Values ..................................................................................... 271
 Contents xv

Use of Values ......................................................................................... 272

Outline ................................................................................................... 274
Commentary ........................................................................................... 274

Chapter 18 Classification of Values ............................................. 277

Introduction ............................................................................................ 277
Deontological and Teleological Values.................................................. 277
Absolute and Relative Values ................................................................ 280
Commentary ........................................................................................... 283

Chapter 19 Choice of Values.......................................................... 287

Introduction ............................................................................................ 287
Unity of Values ...................................................................................... 288
Diversity of Values................................................................................. 295
Compromise View.................................................................................. 300
Choice of Values .................................................................................... 312
Commentary ........................................................................................... 312

2.4.5!Social!Choice!
Chapter 20 Social Choice ................................................................ 317
Introduction ............................................................................................ 317
Making Law ........................................................................................... 318
Interpreting Law ..................................................................................... 320
Commentary ........................................................................................... 321

Chapter 21 Social Choice: Making Law....................................... 323

Introduction ............................................................................................ 323
Direct Democracy................................................................................... 324
Representative Democracy..................................................................... 325
Deliberative Democracy......................................................................... 335
Social Democracy................................................................................... 335
Conclusion.............................................................................................. 335
Commentary ........................................................................................... 336

Chapter 22 Social Choice: Interpreting Law .............................. 341

Introduction ............................................................................................ 341
A. Legislative Legitimacy ...................................................................... 342
B. Judicial Legitimacy............................................................................ 349
C. Metademocracy.................................................................................. 350
Deference................................................................................................ 351
Reconstructionism .................................................................................. 352
Pragmatism ............................................................................................. 353
Disciplinarianism.................................................................................... 358
D. Legislative Legitimacy Reinterpreted ............................................... 360
Commentary ........................................................................................... 370
xiv Contents

2.4.6!Derivatives!of!Policy!
Chapter 23 Precedent ....................................................................... 379
Introduction............................................................................................. 379
A. Nature of Precedent............................................................................ 379
Preserving Rules ..................................................................................... 384
Preserving Policy .................................................................................... 385
Preserving Adaptability and Continuity ................................................. 386
B. Overruling Precedent ......................................................................... 389
Commentary............................................................................................ 392

Chapter 24 Rules................................................................................ 395

Introduction............................................................................................. 395
Identifying Meanings.............................................................................. 396
Promoting Meanings............................................................................... 398
Commentary............................................................................................ 399

2.5: Analysing Language

Chapter 25 Analysing Language ................................................... 401
Introduction............................................................................................. 401
A. Limits to Interpretation ...................................................................... 401
General Limits: Language ...................................................................... 402
Specific Limits: Ambiguity .................................................................... 406
B. Ambiguity .......................................................................................... 406
Identifying Meanings.............................................................................. 407
Classification of Ambiguity.................................................................... 408
Scope of Ambiguity ................................................................................ 411
Prevalence of Ambiguity ........................................................................ 414
Relevance of Ambiguity ......................................................................... 415
Commentary............................................................................................ 417
2.6: Observing Facts
Chapter 26 Observing Facts ........................................................... 421
Introduction............................................................................................. 421
Observation by a Witness ....................................................................... 423
Observation by Equipment ..................................................................... 424
Observation by an Institution.................................................................. 424
Observation by the Court........................................................................ 425
Commentary............................................................................................ 427

Part 3 Irrationality
Chapter 27 Irrationality..................................................................... 429
Introduction............................................................................................. 429
Psychology.............................................................................................. 430
Sociology ................................................................................................ 438
Economics............................................................................................... 441
Philosophy .............................................................................................. 445
 Contents xv

Situational Factors .................................................................................. 447

Commentary ........................................................................................... 447

Part 4 Method
Chapter 28 Legal Method ................................................................ 453
Introduction ............................................................................................ 453
Absence of Method ................................................................................ 453
Need for Method .................................................................................... 457
Nature of Method ................................................................................... 459
Commentary ........................................................................................... 462

Chapter 29 Model for Organising Law ......................................... 465

Introduction ............................................................................................ 465
Macro Analysis....................................................................................... 465
Micro Analysis ....................................................................................... 465
Commentary ........................................................................................... 469

Chapter 30 Model for Enacting Statutes ..................................... 471

Introduction ............................................................................................ 471
Model ..................................................................................................... 471
Step 1. Allocating the Resources............................................................ 473
Step 2. Identifying the Options............................................................... 474
Causation ................................................................................................ 476
Effects..................................................................................................... 477
Step 3. Formulating the Reasons ............................................................ 485
Policy...................................................................................................... 487
Net Benefit ............................................................................................. 488
Step 4. Enacting the Statute.................................................................... 491
Commentary ........................................................................................... 492

Chapter 31 Model for Interpreting Statutes................................ 493

Introduction ............................................................................................ 493
Approaches to Interpreting Statutes ....................................................... 495
Step 1 Organising the Rule..................................................................... 495
Step 2 Identifying the Issues .................................................................. 495
Step 3 Identifying the Meanings and Effects ......................................... 496
Step 4 Identifying the Approach ........................................................... 499
Step 5 Identifying the Desired Meaning................................................. 501
Step 6 Writing the Opinion .................................................................... 503
Application of the Model ....................................................................... 504

Chapter 32 Model for Making Common Law.............................. 507

Introduction ............................................................................................ 507
A. Making the Rule ................................................................................ 507
Elements ................................................................................................. 509
Consequences ......................................................................................... 515
xvi Contents

B. Identifying the Rule............................................................................ 517

Ratio Decidendi ...................................................................................... 517
Obiter Dictum ......................................................................................... 521
C. Obeying the Rule................................................................................ 522
D. Altering the Rule................................................................................ 523
Overt Alteration ...................................................................................... 523
Covert Alteration .................................................................................... 524
Commentary............................................................................................ 529

Chapter 33 Model for Using Law ................................................... 533

Introduction............................................................................................. 533
A. Legal Position .................................................................................... 533
B. Syllogism............................................................................................ 534
Major Premise......................................................................................... 535
Minor Premise......................................................................................... 536
Conclusion .............................................................................................. 541
C. Model ................................................................................................. 542
Structure of the Model ............................................................................ 542
Uses of the Model ................................................................................... 546
Commentary............................................................................................ 547

Bibliography ........................................................................................ 549

Index ..................................................................................................... 579

Table of Legislation

Australian Capital Territory

Interpretation Act 1967
s11A .................................................................................................................................352
s11B .................................................................................................................................353
Legislation Act 2001
s138 ..................................................................................................................................352
s139 ..................................................................................................................................353

Canada
British North America Act 1867 ........................................................................................349
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
s7 ......................................................................................................................................334
Constitution Act 1867
s24 ....................................................................................................................................349
Narcotics Control Act 1970................................................................................................329

Commonwealth
Acts Interpretation Act 1901
s15AA .............................................................................................................. 328-329, 352
s15AB ..............................................................................................353, 387, 389, 398, 401
Australian Law Reform Commission Act 1996 .................................................................218
Broadcasting Services Act 1992 ........................................................................................266
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (1900) ...............................................298, 320
s9 ..............................................................................................................................298, 320
Constitution ................................................................................ 288, 297-299, 320, 355, 399
s116 ..................................................................................................................................263
s128 ..........................................................................................................288, 298, 299, 320

European Economic Community

Convention for the Protection of Biodiversity ........................................................... 230-231

New South Wales

Community Protection Act 1994....................................................................................25, 27
Interpretation Act 1987
s5(4) .................................................................................................................................379
s33 ....................................................................................................................................352
s34 ....................................................................................................................................353
Jury Act 1977
s68A .................................................................................................................................408
Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991
s6(2) ......................................................................................................................... 230-231
Subordinate Legislation Act 1989.............................................................. 144, 146, 155-156
s3(1) .................................................................................................................................146
s5(1) ................................................................................................. 144, 146, 155-156, 469
Schedule 2 .................................................................................. 142, 146, 155-156, 452, 469

xvii
xviii Table of Legislation

Norfolk Island
Interpretation Act
s9 ......................................................................................................................................379
s10C .................................................................................................................................352
s10D .................................................................................................................................353

Northern Territory
Interpretation Act
s62A .................................................................................................................................352
s62B .................................................................................................................................353

Queensland
Acts Interpretation Act 1954
s14A .................................................................................................................................352
s14B .................................................................................................................................353
Evidence Act 1977
s118 ....................................................................................................................................84
s119 ....................................................................................................................................84
Legislative Standards Act 1992
s4(1) .................................................................................................................................286

South Australia
Acts Interpretation Act 1915
s21 ....................................................................................................................................352
s22 ....................................................................................................................................352
s22(2) ...............................................................................................................................352

Tasmania
Acts Interpretation Act 1931
s8A ...................................................................................................................................352
s8B ...................................................................................................................................353

United Kingdom
6 & 7 William IV c 37 (1836) ............................................................................................347
Australia Act 1986 .............................................................................................................320
Bill of Rights 1688 .............................................................................................................242
British North America Act 1867 ........................................................................................349
Fatal Accidents Act 1846 (Lord Campbells Act)...........................................................88, 89
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (1900) ...............................................298, 320
s9 ..............................................................................................................................298, 320
Law Commission Act 1965................................................................................................218
Magna Carta 1215 ..............................................................................................................242
Merchant Shipping Act 1995 .............................................................................................357
Slavery Abolition Act 1833................................................................................................315
Statute of Frauds 1677 (29 Car 2 c 3) ..........................................................................86, 485

United Nations
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) ........................................................276, 459
 Table of Legislation xix

United States
American Immigration and Nationality Act 1952 (US)
s212(a)(4)................................................................................................................. 348-349
Civil Rights Act 1964 (US)
s703(a)(1).........................................................................................................................345
Declaration of Independence..............................................................................................275
Elizabeth Morgan Act ..........................................................................................................25
Endangered Species Act 1973.................................................................................... 250-251
Federal Rules of Evidence (US)
Rule 702 ....................................................................................................................... 51-52
National Motor Vehicle Theft Act 1919
s3 ......................................................................................................................................356
National Prohibition Act 1919 (Volstead Act) ..................................................................252
Palm Sunday Compromise ...................................................................................................25

Victoria
Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984
s4(2) .................................................................................................................................379
s35 ............................................................................................................................352, 353

Western Australia
Interpretation Act 1984
s8 ......................................................................................................................................352
s18 ....................................................................................................................................352
s19 ....................................................................................................................................353
Table of Cases

Table of Abbreviations
Ad. Steam. Co Adelaide Steamship Co
Deans Deans and Canons of Windsor
DPP Director of Public Prosecutions
FCT Federal Commissioner of Taxation
GMLAS General Mutual Life Assurance Society
NSW New South Wales
VVA Vietnam Veteran’s Association

Adelaide Steamship Co v Spavins (1998) 81 FCR 360 ..................................................... 91-92

Admiralty Commissioners v SS Valverda [1938] AC 173 ........................................... 153, 156
Aerated Bread Company, The v Gregg (1873) 8 LRQB 355................................................ 366
Agbaba v Witter (1977) 14 ALR 187.................................................................................... 424
Alcatel v Commissioner of Patents (1996) 138 ALR 504..................................................... 303
Allen v Flood [1898] AC 1 ................................................................................................... 436
Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Ad. Steam. Co (1920) 28 CLR 1291 ......... 346, 403, 405
American Dairy Queen v Blue Rio (1981) 37 ALR 613....................................................... 369
Archer v Howell (1992) 7 WAR 33 .............................................................. 149, 358, 387, 521
Armory v Delamirie (1772) 5 Stra 505; 93 ER 664 .............................................................. 463
Attorney General v Butterworth [1963] 1 QB 696.................................................................. 79
Attorney General v Deans (1860) 8 HLC 369....................................................... 392, 517, 531
Attorney General v Heineman Publishing (1987) 10 NSWLR 86 ........................................ 302
Attorney General v Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover [1957] AC 436 ..................... 418, 420
Attorney General v Quin (1990) 93 ALR 1 ............................................................................ 68
Australasian Temperance and GMLA Society v Howe (1922) 21 CLR 290 .................. 52, 419
Australian Capital Television v Commonwealth (1992) 177 CLR 106 ........................ 286, 314
Australian Safeway Stores v Zaluzna (1987) 162 CLR 479 .................................................. 79
Australian Telecommunications Commission v Parsons (1985) 59 ALR 535...................... 303
Avel v Attorney General (1987) 11 NSWLR 126.................................................... 52, 402-403
Babaniaris v Lutony Fashions (1987) 71 ALR 225............................................................... 156
Baker v Boulton (1808) 1 Camp 493; 170 ER 1033 ......................................................... 94, 98
Barratt v Howard (2000) 170 ALR 529 ................................................................................ 369
Barrett v Thurling [1984] 2 NSWLR 683 ............................................................................ 366
Baylis v Bishop of London [1913] 1 Ch 127 .......................................................................... 79
BC Motor Vehicle Act, Re [1985] 2 SCR 486 ...................................................................... 354
Bell v Australian Securities Commission (1991) 103 ALR 689 ........................................... 369
Bennett & Wood v Orange City Council [1967] 1 NSWLR 502.......................................... 156
Bermingham v Corrective Services Commission (1988) 15 NSWLR 292 ........................... 414
Bolton, Re; Ex parte Beane (1987) 162 CLR 514, 70 ALR 225................................... 369, 376
Bonham’s Case (1610) 8 Co Rep 107a, 114a CP ................................................................. 374
Boston v WS Bagshaw [1966] 1 WLR 1135......................................................................... 427
Bourke v State Bank of New South Wales (1988) 85ALR 61, 22 FCR 378 ........................ 294
Bourne v Keane [1919] AC 815 ............................................................................................ 156
Bowman v Secular Society [1917] AC 406 .......................................................................... 156
Bowtell v Goldsborough Mort & Co (1996) 3 CLR 444 ...................................................... 418
Boys v Chaplin [1968] 2 QB 1 ...................................................................................... 153, 519

1. Engineers’ Case

xxi
xxii Table of Cases

Bracy v Gramley 520 US 899 (1997).................................................................................... 435

Braschi v Stahl Associates 543 NE 2d 49 (NY 1989 .................................... 140, 357, 367, 373
Brennan v Comcare (1994) 50 FCR 555; 122 ALR 615....................................................... 405
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336...................................................................... 121
Brisbane City Council v Attorney General (1978) 19 ALR 681........................................... 427
Broome v Cassell & Co [1972] UKHL 3; [1972] AC 1027.................................................... 93
Brown v Classification Review Board (1998) 154 ALR 67.................................................. 369
Brownlee v The Queen (2001) 180 ALR 301 ......................................................................... 53
Bryan v Maloney (1995) 182 CLR 609................................................................................... 96
Buckley v Bennett Design & Constructions (1978) 19 ALR 257 ......................................... 156
Burnie Port Authority v General Jones (1994) 179 CLR 520 ................................................. 79
Butchers’ Co v Crescent City 111 US 746 (1884) ................................................................ 316
Calvins Case (1609) 7 Co Rep 1a............................................................................ 68, 292, 294
Caminetti v US 242 US 470 (1917) ...................................................................................... 420
Centronics Systems v Nintendo (1992) 111 ALR 13 ............................................................ 303
Chappell and Co v Associated Radio Co of Australia [1925] VLR 350............................... 375
Chaudary v Minister for Immigration (1994) 121 ALR 315................................................. 302
Chevron Inc v Natural Resources Defense Council 467 US 837 (1984) .............................. 351
Christie v Permean, Wright Co Ltd (1904) 1 CLR 693 ........................................................ 369
CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd 141 ALR 618............................... 417, 420
Clayton v Heffron (1960) 105 CLR 214 ............................................................................... 331
Clutha Developments v Barry (1989) 18 NSWLR 86........................................................... 156
Coco v R (1994) 120 ALR 415 ............................................................................................. 369
Cohen v Cohen [1929] HCA 15; (1929) 42 CLR 91............................................................... 94
Committee of Direction of Fruit Marketing v Collins (1925) 36 CLR 410 .......................... 369
Commonwealth v Progress Advertising and Press Agency (1909) 10 CLR 457.................. 369
Commonwealth v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394................................................................. 79
Commonwealth v Welosky 276 Mass 398 (1931.................................................................. 376
Companhia de Seguros Imperio v Heath (REBX) [2001] 1 WLR 112 .................................. 98
Connecticut National Bank v Germain 112 Sct 1146 (1992)................................................ 419
Connor v Sankey [1976] 2 NSWLR 570....................................................................... 153, 355
Cooper Brookes v FCT (1981) 147 CLR 297; 35 ALR 151 ......................................... 302, 303
Cooper v Southern Portland Cement (1972) 128 CLR 427 .................................................. 206
Corkery v Carpenter [1951] 1 KB 102 .................................................................. 367, 404, 408
Coulthard v Disco Mix Club Ltd [2000] 1 WLR 707 ............................................................. 98
Crowley v Lewis 239 NY 264 (1925) ................................................................................... 150
Daniels v White [1938] 4 All ER 258 ..................................................................... 10,, 60, 467
Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals 509 US 579, 113 SCt 2786 (1992) ........................ 58
David Securities v Commonwealth Bank (1992) 175 CLR 353 ......................... 79, 94, 96, 524
Davies v Deverell (1992) 1 Tas R 214 .................................................................................. 405
Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers [1993] AC 534 ....................................... 294
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472........................ 121
Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292; 109 ALR 385.................................. 282, 285, 302
Director of Public Prosecutions v Fowler (1984) 55 ALR 175............................................. 303
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562.........66, 79, 91, 291-293, 302, 312, 380, 512-513, 527
Dornan v Riordan (1990) 95 ALR 451 ................................................................................... 15
DPC Estates v Grey and Consul Development [1974] 1 NSWLR 443............................. 92, 97
Dr Bonham’s Case (1610) 8 Co Rep 107a, 114a CP ........................................................... 374
Dred Scott v Sandford, 60 US (19 How) 393 (1857) ............................................................ 333
Duport Steels v Sirs [1980] 1 WLR 142, [1980] 1 All ER 529............................................. 413
Dyke v Walford (1848) 5 Moo PCC; 13 ER 557 .................................................................. 464
 Table of Cases xxiii

Edwards v Attorney General [1930] AC 124 ........................................................................ 368

Emmens v Pottle (1885) 16 QBD 354................................................................................... 289
Esso Australia Resources v FCT [1999] HCA 67; (1999) 201 CLR 49 ................... 93, 93, 97,
Evda Nominees v Victoria (1984) 154 CLR 311 .......................................................... 148, 387
Fairfax v FCT (1965) 114 CLR 1.......................................................................................... 259
Farah Constructions v Say-Dee [2007] HCA 22, (2007) 230 CLR 89 ............................. 92, 97
Farrell v Alexander [1976] 2 All ER 721 .............................................................................. 152
FCT v Chubb (1995) 128 ALR 489 ...................................................................................... 178
FCT v Trustees of Lisa Marie Walsh (1983) 48 ALR 253.................................................... 404
Fergusson v Union Steamship Co (1884) 10 VLR (L) 279................................................... 369
Fisher v Prince (1762) 3 Burr 1363 ......................................................................................... 68
Fitzgerald v FJ Leonhardt Pty Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 215 ........................................................ 95
Foreditch v United States (2003)............................................................................................. 28
Fothergill v Monarch Airlines Ltd [1981] AC 251 .............................................................. 371
Frye v United States 54 App DC 46; 293 F 1013 (DC Cir) (1923).................................... 57-58
Gallagher v Durack (1982) 44 ALR 477 ............................................................................... 285
Geelong Harbour Trust v Gibbs Bright (1974) 129 CLR 576............................................... 156
Gladstone v Armstrong [1908] VLR 454 .............................................................................. 369
Graham v Ninness (1986) 65 ALR 331................................................................................. 303
Gray v Motor Accident Commission [1998] HCA 70 ............................................... 94, 96, 97
Grey v Pearson (1857) 6 HLC 61.......................................................................................... 414
Hamdi v Rumsfeld 542 US 507 (2004) ................................................................................. 284
Harnett v Fisher [1927] 1 KB 402; [1927] AC 573................................................... 68, 79, 313
Harrisburg, The 119 US 199; 7 SCt 140; 30 Led (1886) ........................................................ 94
Hatzimanolis v ANI Corporation (1992) 173 CLR 473 .......................................................... 79
Hayes v Cable (1961) 78 WN (NSW) 735 ............................................................................ 369
Heydon’s Case (1584) 3 Co Rep 7a ............................................... 301, 313, 346-347, 360, 371
Higgins v O’Dea [1962] WAR 140....................................................................................... 420
Hill v Aldershot Corporation [1933] 1 KB 259.............................................. 215, 299, 435-436
Hilton v FCT (1992) 110 ALR 167 ....................................................................................... 303
HL Bolton v TJ Graham [1957] 1 QB 159............................................................................ 424
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 ................................................................................. 121
Isherwood v Butler Pollinow (1986) 6 NSWLR 363 .................................................... 418, 420
IW v City of Perth (1997) 146 ALR 696....................................................................... 414, 418
Jackson v Delaware 170 Atl 22 (1933) ................................................................................. 249
James B Beam Distilling Co v Georgia 501 US 529 (1991) ................................................. 151
Jegatheeswaran v Minister for Immigration [2001] FCA 865 (9 July 2001) ........................ 178
John v FCT (1989) 89 ATC 4101....................................................................150-151, 153-155
Johnson v Southern Pacific Co 117 Fed 462 (CCA 8th ed 1902) ......................................... 375
Johnson v Southern Pacific Co 196 US (1904) ..................................................................... 367
Jones v Commonwealth (1987) 61 ALJR 348; 71 ALR 497 ................................................ 149
Jones v Randall (1774) 1 Cowp 17.......................................................................................... 67
Jones v Wrotham Park Estates [1980] AC 74 ....................................................................... 420
Kable v DPP (1996) 189 CLR 51............................................................................................ 28
Kingston v Keprose (1987) 11 NSWLR 404 ................................................ 149, 343, 358, 387
Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550, 62 ALR 321................................................................... 368
Knox v Gye (1872) LR 5 HL 656 ........................................................................................... 97
Knuller v DPP [1972] 2 All ER 898........................................................................................ 79
KP Welding Construction v Herbert (1995) 102 NTR 20..................................................... 417
Lake Macquarie Shire Council v Aberdare County Council (1970) 123 CLR 327 .............. 375
Lebanese Moslem Association v Minister for Immigration (1986) 11 FCR 543.................. 293
xxiv Table of Cases

Lennard’s Carrying v Asiatic Petroleum [1915] AC 705.............................................. 317, 424

Leon v Casey [1932] 2 KB 488 ............................................................................................. 295
Lie v Refugee Review Tribunal ............................................................................................ 463
Lincoln College Case (1595) 3 Co Rep 586.......................................................................... 371
Liversidge v Anderson [1941] AC 207 ................................................................................. 284
London and North Eastern Railway Co v Berriman [1946] AC 278 .................................... 419
Louth v Diprose (1992) 175 CLR 621 .................................................................................... 79
Luke v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1963] AC 557....................................................... 418
M-T v M-T [1949] P 331....................................................................................................... 157
Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 ..................................................................... 286
Mackenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348 ..................................................................... 422
Magor and St Mellons v Newport Corporation [1951] All ER 839 ...................................... 420
Maguire v Makaronis [1997] HCA 23 .................................................................................... 97
Marbury v Madison (1803) 1 Cranch 137, 5 US 877.............................................................. 68
Mashpee Tribe v New Seabury Corp 592 F 2d 575 (1st Cir), 444 US 866 (1979) ............... 372
Mashpee Tribe v Town of Mashpee 447 F Supp 940 (D Mass 1978) .................................. 372
Mason, Re [1928] Ch 385 ............................................................................................. 152-153
Maunsell v Olins [1975] AC 373 .......................................................................................... 419
Maynard v O’Brien (1991) 78 NTR 16 ................................................................................. 371
McBoyle v United States 283 US 25 (1931) ................................................................. 367, 375
McCarry v Pheasant Run 826 F 2d 1554 (7th Cir, 1987)...................................................... 121
McCawley v The King (1918) 26 CLR 9, 24 ALR 413 ........................................................ 405
McCrae v Coulton (1986) 7 NSWLR 644............................................................................. 369
McFarlane v Tayside Health Board [2000] 2 AC 59 ............................................................ 292
McLoughlin v O’Brian [1983] 1 AC 410................................................................................ 96
McManus v Scott-Charlton (1996) 140 ALR 625................................................................. 302
Melbourne Corporation v Barry (1922) 31 CLR 174............................................................ 377
Metal Manufacturers v Lewis (1988) 13 ACLR 357 ........................................................... 356
Metropolitan Properties v Lannon [1969] 1 QB 577 ............................................................ 265
Miller v Commonwealth (1904) 1 CLR 668 .......................................................... 417-418, 420
Mills v Meeking (1990) 91 ALR 16....................................................... 371, 413, 417-418, 420
Minister for Immigration v Guo (1996) 144 ALR 567 ......................................................... 104
Minister for Immigration v Petrovski (1998) 154 ALR 606 ................................................. 303
Minister for Immigration v Sciascia (1991) 103 ALR 307 ................................................... 369
Minister for Immigration v Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273; 128 ALR 353 ........................ 293, 302
Mirehouse v Rennell (1833) 1 Cl & F 527....................................... 91, 149, 153, 158, 387-388
Mistretta v United States 488 US 361 (1989) ...................................................................... 359
Mobasa v Nikic (1987) 47 NTR 48 ......................................................................................... 15
Moragne v States Marine Lines Inc 398 US 375 (1970).................................................... 94-95
Morrison v Olson 487 US 654 (1988) ................................................................................... 359
Mourani v Jeldi Manufacturing (1983) 57 ALJR 825........................................................... 422
Mudginberri Station v Langhorne (1985) 68 ALR 613......................................................... 369
Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal [2002] HCA 30 ............................................................... 463
National Bank of Greece v Metliss [1958] AC 509 .............................................................. 302
Neat Holdings v Karajan Holdings (1992) 67 ALJR 170 ..................................................... 178
Nelson v Nelson (1995) 184 CLR 538 .................................................................................... 95
New South Wales Bar Association v Muirhead (1988) 14 NSWLR 173 ............................... 60
Newbury v Bristol Tramways and Carriage Co (1912) 107 LT 801..................................... 422
Newcastle City Council v GIO (1997) 149 ALR 623 ................................................... 303, 420
Nicol v Chant (1909) 7 CLR 569 .......................................................................................... 418
Nixon v Administrator of General Services 433 US 425 (1977) .......................................... 157
 Table of Cases xxv

Nkambul v R [1950] AC 379 ................................................................................................ 153

Northern Sandblasting v Harris (1997) 188 CLR 313............................................................. 78
Northern Securities Co v United States 193 US 197............................................................... 16
O’Brien v Gillies (1990) 69 NTR 1....................................................................................... 369
Oceanic Sunline Shipping v Fay (1988) 165 CLR 197 .......................................................... 90
O’Connell v Reg (1844) 11 Cl & Fin 155 ............................................................................. 156
O’Reilly, Re ; Ex parte Bayford Wholesale (1983) 181 CLR 557........................................ 494
Onassis v Vergoittis [1968] 2 Lloyds Rep 403 ..................................................................... 449
Ormond Investment v Betts [1922] All ER Rep 709 ............................................................ 409
Ostime v Australian Mutual Provident Society [1969] AC 459............................................ 389
O’Sullivan v Farrer (1989) 89 ALR 71 ................................................................................ 398
Otis Elevators v Zitis (1986) 5 NSWLR 171 ........................................................................ 427
Overseas Tankship v Morts Dock and Engineering Co2 [1961] AC 388 .............................. 185
Overseas Tankship v Miller Steamship3 [1967] 1 AC 617.................................................... 185
Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad Co 162 NE 99 (NY 1928)................................................... 3-4
Pambula District Hospital v Herriman (1988) 14 NSWLR 387............................................ 371
Paragon Finance plc v DB Thakerar & Co [1999] 1 All ER 400............................................ 98
Paragon Properties v Magna Investments (1972) 24 DLR (3d) 156 ...................................... 93
Parker v British Airways Board [1982] 1 QB 1004 ............................................................. 464
Pearce v Gardner [1897] 1 QB 688 ....................................................................................... 292
Peninsula Group v Registrar-General (1996) 136 FLR 8...................................................... 417
People v Collins, 438 P2d 33 (Cal 1968) ................................................................................ 77
Perka v The Queen [1984] 2 SCR 232 .................................................................................. 348
Peters v The Queen [1998] HCA 7; (1998) 192 CLR 493 ...................................................... 94
Phosphate Co-op v Environment Protection Authority (1977) 18 ALR 210 ........................ 405
Pilmer v Duke Group Ltd [2001] HCA 31 ................................................................... 91-93, 97
Planned Parenthood v Casey 505 US 833 (1992) ................................................................. 150
Prior v Sherwood (1906) 3 CLR 1054 .................................................................................. 397
Proctor v Jetway Aviation [1984] 1 NSWLR 166......................................................... 148, 387
Project Blue Sky v ABA (1998) 153 ALR 490 ..................................................... 303, 402, 419
Pyneboard v Trade Practices Commission (1983) 45 ALR 609 ........................................... 377
Queensland v Commonwealth (1977) 139 CLR 585 ............................................................ 415
Quinn v Leathem [1901] 1 AC 495 ....................................................................................... 436
R v Carroll (2002) 77 ALJR 157 ................................................................................... 288, 296
R v Goodwin [2005] EWCA Crim 3184 ............................................................................... 376
R v Delaval (1763) 3 Burr 1434 .............................................................................................. 67
R v Ireland [1988] AC 147 .................................................................................................... 375
R v L (1994) 122 ALR 464 ................................................................................................... 411
R v Mason [1928] Ch 385 .............................................................................................. 152-153
R v Morton (1873) LR 2 CCR 22.......................................................................................... 540
R v Smith [1974] 2 NSWLR 586 .......................................................................................... 409
R v Sussex Justices; Ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256 .................................................. 264
R v Taylor [1950] 2 KB 368.................................................................................................. 153
R v The Judge of the City of London Court [1892] 1 QB 273.............................................. 404
R v Trade Practices Tribunal; Ex parte Tasmanian Breweries (1970) 123 CLR 361 ........... 361
R v Watson; Ex parte Armstrong (1976) 136 CLR 248 ....................................................... 265
R v Wilkes (1770) 4 Burr 2527; 98 ER 327 .......................................................................... 284
R v Wooler (1817) 6 M&S 366 ............................................................................................. 427

2. Wagon Mound (No 1)

3. Wagon Mound (No 2)
xxvi Table of Cases

R v Young (1999) 46 NSWLR 681 ....................................................................... 404, 406, 414

Rankin v Baldi [1985] 1 NSWLR 274 .......................................................................... 152-154
Rasul v Bush 542 US 466 (2004) .......................................................................................... 284
Repatriation Commission v Kohn (1989) 87 ALR 111................................................. 403, 419
Repatriation Commission v VVA (2000) 171 ALR 523....................................... 409, 412, 418
Richardson v FCT (1997) 150 ALR 167 ............................................................................... 303
Robinson Bros v Houghton Assessment Committee [1937] 2 KB 445 ................................ 156
Robinson v Continental Insurance Co [1915] 1 KB 155....................................................... 302
Roe v Wade 410 US 113 (1973)............................................................................ 180, 182, 269
Rose v Abbey Orchard Property Investments [87] Aust Torts Reports ¶80-121 .................. 121
Rowlands, Re [1963] 1 Ch 1 ................................................................................................. 420
Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330................................................................................. 79
Sarasawati v R (1991) 100 ALR 193 .................................................................................... 420
Sargood Brothers v Commonwealth (1910) 11 CLR 258 ............................................. 369, 376
Schlup v Delo 513 US 298 (1995) ........................................................................................ 248
Scruttons v Midland Silicone [1962] 1 AC 446 .................................................... 152, 527, 531
Sharp v Wakefield (1888) 22 QBD 239 ................................................................................ 366
Shaw v DPP [1962] AC 562...................................................................................... 67, 79, 312
Shearer, Re (1891) 12 LR (NSW) 24 .................................................................................... 369
Shire of Arapiles v Board of Land and Works (1904) 1 CLR 679........................................ 405
Smith v Allwright (1944) 321 US 649 .......................................................................... 386, 393
Smith v United States 53 113 SCt 2050, 2061 (1993) .................................................. 407, 413
Smoker v Pharmacy Restructuring Authority (1994) 36 ALD 1 .......................................... 366
Somerset v Stewart4 (1772) Lofft 1; 20 Howell’s State Trials 79, 98 ER 499....... 284, 322-323
Sonzinsky v United States 300 US 506 (1937) ..................................................................... 259
Starkman v Delhi Court Ltd (1961) 28 DLR (2d) 269 ............................................................ 93
State Government Insurance Commission v Trigwell (1979) 142 CLR 617 .......................... 68
State Superannuation Board v FCT (1988) 82 ALR 63 ........................................................ 427
Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman (1985) 60 ALR 1 .......................................................... 96
Sussex Peerage Case (1844) 1 Cl & F 85; 8 ER 1034............................................................... li
Tackiack v Commissioner of Australian Federal Police (1995) 131 ALR 319 .................... 369
Taff Vale Railway v Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants5 [1901] AC 426 .............. 436
Tassell v Hayes (1987) 71 ALR 480 ..................................................................................... 369
Telstra Corporation v Hornsby Shire Council [2006] NSWLEC 133................................... 249
Tenax v Steamship Co v The Brimnes [1974] Int Com LR 05/23, [1975] QB 929................ 76
Trethowan v Peden (1930) 31 SR (NSW) 183 ...................................................................... 331
Trevisan v FCT (1991) 101 ALR 26 .............................................................................. 404-405
Trident v McNiece (1988) 80 ALR 574 ................................................................................ 154
Tumahole Bereng v R [1949] 1 AC 253 ........................................................................ 153-154
United States v Carolene Products 304 US 144 ................................................................... 352
United States v Carroll Towing 159 F 2d 169, (2nd Cir, 1947) ........................................... 121
United States Fidelity and Guarantee Co v Jadranska 683 F 2d 1022 (7th Cir, 1982) ......... 121
United States v Sanchez 340 US 42, 44 (1950)..................................................................... 259
United Steel Workers v Weber (1979) 443 US 193 .............................................................. 364
Vacher v London Society of Compositors [1913] AC 107 ............................................. 52, 402
Valentini v Canali (1890) 24 QBD 166................................................................................. 303
Van der Meer v The Queen (1988) ALR 10.......................................................................... 247
Victor v Nebraska 511 US 1 (1994) 14 ................................................................................... 84

4. Somerset’s Case
5. Taff Vale Railway Case
 Table of Cases xxvii

Wacal Development Realty Development Pty Ltd (1978) 20 ALR 621................ 417-418, 420
Wagon Mound, The6 ..................................................................................................... 181, 185
Wallis v Smith (1882) 21 Ch D 243 ...................................................................................... 156
Ward v James [1966] 1 QB 273 ............................................................................................ 422
Warnink v Townend [1979] AC 731....................................................................................... 91
Waverley Borough Council v Fletcher 4 All ER 75................................................................ 79
White v John Warwick [1953] 1 WLR 1285 ........................................................................ 360
Whiteley v Chappell (1868-1869) 4 LQRB 147 ................................................................... 420
Willis v Baddely [1892] 2 QB 324 ........................................................................... 68, 79, 313
Wilson v Commissioner of Stamp Duties (1988) 13 NSWLR 77 ........................................ 375
Wilson v Glossop (1888) 20 QBD 354 ......................................................................... 293, 302
Wilson v Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (1996) 189 CLR 1 ............................................... 435
Winship, Re 397 US 358 (1970) ..................................................................................... 84, 249
X v Minister for Immigration (1999) 164 ALR 583 ............................................................... 90
Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co [1944] 1 KB 718.................................................................. 152

6. See Overseas Tankship v Morts Dock and Engineering Co and Overseas Tankship v Miller
Steamship.
Table of Diagrams

Summary
Summary Diagram 1 Syllogism for Applying Law to Facts......................... xliii
Summary Diagram 2 Form of Induction ....................................................... xliii
Summary Diagram 3 Form of Abduction...................................................... xliii
Summary Diagram 4 Model for Organising Law .......................................... xlv
Summary Diagram 5 Statutes, Effects and Net Benefits.............................. xlvii
Summary Diagram 6 Meanings, Effects and Net Benefits.......................... xlviii
Summary Diagram 7 Meanings, Actual Effects and Desired Effects .............. lii
Summary Diagram 8 Syllogism for Interpreting Law..................................... liii
Summary Diagram 9 Model for Organising Law ........................................... liv
Summary Diagram 10 Model for Applying Law ............................................. lv
Summary Diagram 11 Syllogism for Applying Law to Facts.......................... lv
Summary Diagram 12 Model for Using Law.................................................. lvi

Chapter 1 Outline
Diagram 1.1 Structure of a Legal Rule.............................................................. 9
Diagram 1.2 Application of a Legal Rule to Facts.......................................... 10
Diagram 1.3 Illustration of a Syllogism .......................................................... 10
Diagram 1.4 Syllogism for Applying Law to Facts ........................................ 11

Chapter 3 Structuring Legal Rules

Diagram 3.1 Syllogism.................................................................................... 25
Diagram 3.2 Syllogism for Applying Law to Facts ........................................ 26
Diagram 3.3 Legal Rule as a Conditional Statement ...................................... 26

Chapter Logical Reasoning

Diagram 4.1 Form of Deduction ..................................................................... 33
Diagram 4.2 Form of Induction....................................................................... 34
Diagram 4.3 Form of Abduction ..................................................................... 35
Diagram 4.4 Form of Analogy ........................................................................ 35
Diagram 4.5 Form of Deduction ..................................................................... 38
Diagram 4.6 Form of Induction....................................................................... 38
Diagram 4.7 Form of Abduction ..................................................................... 39
Diagram 4.8 Form of Analogy ........................................................................ 39
Diagram 4.9 Summary of Logical Reasoning ................................................. 40

Chapter 5 Deduction
Diagram 5.1 Syllogism: Propositional Logic – Modus Ponens ...................... 42
Diagram 5.2 Syllogism: Logic of Relations .................................................... 42
Diagram 5.3 Syllogism: Predicate Logic A..................................................... 42
Diagram 5.4 Syllogism: Predicate Logic B..................................................... 43
Diagram 5.5 Syllogism: Sound Form.............................................................. 43

xxix
 xxx Table of Diagrams

Diagram 5.6 Syllogism: False Major Premise ................................................. 43

Diagram 5.7 Syllogism: False Minor Premise................................................. 44
Diagram 5.8 Syllogism: Illogical Reasoning................................................... 44
Diagram 5.9 Syllogism for Applying Law to Facts A..................................... 45
Diagram 5.10 Syllogism for Applying Law to Facts B ................................... 45
Diagram 5.11 Elements and Consequences of Trespass to Land .................... 47
Diagram 5.12 Application of Law to Facts: Trespass to Land ........................ 49
Diagram 5.13 Syllogism for Interpreting Law................................................. 50
Diagram 5.14 Deduction for Inference Based on Causation ........................... 56
Diagram 5.15 Probabilities for Scientific Testing ........................................... 57

Chapter 6 Induction
Diagram 6.1 Illustration of Induction .............................................................. 64
Diagram 6.2 Illustration of Induction .............................................................. 65
Diagram 6.3 Illustration of Induction .............................................................. 65
Diagram 6.4 Generalisation ............................................................................. 66
Diagram 6.5 Induction for Establishing a Causal Law.................................... 70
Diagram 6.6 Time Periods for Payment and Notice........................................ 76

Chapter 7 Abduction
Diagram 7.1 Form of Abduction...................................................................... 82
Diagram 7.2 Statutes and Effects..................................................................... 83
Diagram 7.3 Meanings and Effects.................................................................. 83

Chapter 8 Analogy
Diagram 8.1 Analogy....................................................................................... 87
Diagram 8.2 Illustration of Induction .............................................................. 88
Diagram 8.3 Analogy and Induction................................................................ 88

Chapter 9 Probability
Diagram 9.1 Model for Proving Facts ........................................................... 101
Diagram 9.2 Measures of Probability ............................................................ 105
Diagram 9.3 Derivation of the Multiplication Rule....................................... 111
Diagram 9.4 Independent Facts ..................................................................... 112
Diagram 9.5 Illustration of the Multiplication Rule ...................................... 112
Diagram 9.6 Independent Facts ..................................................................... 113
Diagram 9.7 Data for Illustrating Bayes Theorem ........................................ 116
Diagram 9.8 Bayes Theorem for Two Events ............................................... 116
Diagram 9.9 Bayes Theorem for Multiple Events......................................... 116
Diagram 9.10 Calculation of Bayesian Probabilities..................................... 117
Diagram 9.11 Expected Values ..................................................................... 118

Chapter 10 Policy
Diagram 10.1 Statutes and Effects........................................................ 135
 Table of Diagrams xxxi

Diagram 10.2 Statutes, Effects and Net Benefits ................................. 135

Diagram 10.3 Meanings and Effects .................................................... 136

Chapter 11 Nature of Net Benefit

Diagram 11.1 Statutes and Effects ................................................................ 142
Diagram 11.2 Meanings and Effects ............................................................. 142

Chapter 12 Measurement of Net Benefit

Diagram 12.1 Summary of Measurement Scales .......................................... 161

Chapter 13 Cause
Diagram 13.1 Syllogism: Logic of Relations ................................................ 173
Diagram 13.2 Continuation of Effects .......................................................... 179

Chapter 14 Cause: Explanatory Theories

Diagram 14.1 Four Stages of Catastrophic Change ...................................... 204
Diagram 14.2 Occurrence of Change ............................................................ 213
Diagram 14.3 Calculation of Expected Values ............................................. 223

Chapter 16 Effects
Diagram 16.1 Statutes and Effects ................................................................ 252
Diagram 16.2 Statutes and Effects ................................................................ 252
Diagram 16.3 Rules and Effects.................................................................... 253
Diagram 16.4 Meanings and Effects ............................................................. 253
Diagram 16.5 Statutes, Predicted Effects and Actual Effects ....................... 254
Diagram 16.6 Elements, Consequences and Facts ........................................ 256

Chapter 17 Values
Diagram 17.1 Statutes and Effects........................................................ 272
Diagram 17.2 Meanings and Effects .................................................... 273

Chapter 18 Classification of Values

Diagram 18.1 Alternative Classifications of Values ............................ 277
Diagram 18.2 Effects, Benefits and Costs ............................................ 279
Diagram 18.3 Deontological Evaluation Based on Net Benefit ........... 280

Chapter 22 Social Choice: Interpreting Law

Diagram 22.1 Meanings and Effects .................................................... 362
Diagram 22.2 Purpose and Object Provisions ...................................... 371
Diagram 22.3 Purpose and Object Provisions ...................................... 372

Chapter 23 Precedent
Diagram 23.1 Material Facts and Elements.......................................... 381
 xxxii Table of Diagrams

Chapter 25 Analysing Language

Diagram 25.1 Daisy Bell: Extract......................................................... 408
Diagram 25.2 Classification of Ambiguity........................................... 409

Chapter 29 Model for Organising Law

Diagram 29.1 Structure of a Legal Rule ........................................................ 466
Diagram 29.2 Application of a Legal Rule to Facts ...................................... 466
Diagram 29.3 Syllogism for Applying Law to Facts..................................... 467

Chapter 30 Model for Enacting Statutes

Diagram 30.1 Model for Enacting a Statute .................................................. 472
Diagram 30.2 Making the Decision............................................................... 473
Diagram 30.3 Options for Statutes ................................................................ 475
Diagram 30.4 Options for Statutes ................................................................ 476
Diagram 30.5 Options for Statutes ................................................................ 478
Diagram 30.6 Statutes, Predicted Effects and Actual Effects........................ 479
Diagram 30.7 Statutes, Effects and Net Benefits........................................... 488

Chapter 31 Model for Interpreting Statutes

Diagram 31.1 Model for Interpreting Statutes............................................... 495
Diagram 31.2 Meanings................................................................................. 496
Diagram 31.3 Meanings and Effects.............................................................. 498
Diagram 31.4 Options for Interpreting a Statute ........................................... 503

Chapter 32 Model for Making Common Law

Diagram 32.1 Rules ....................................................................................... 508
Diagram 32.2 Facts and Case Facts ............................................................... 510
Diagram 32.3 Versions of Elements .............................................................. 514

Chapter 33 Model for Using Law

Diagram 33.1 Syllogism for Applying Law to Facts..................................... 534
Diagram 33.2 Rules for Applying Law to Facts............................................ 538
Diagram 33.3 Syllogism for Applying Law to Facts..................................... 541
Diagram 33.4 Syllogism in Simple Form ...................................................... 541
Diagram 33.5 Syllogism for Applying Law to Facts..................................... 543
Diagram 33.6 Part of the Model for Litigation.............................................. 544
Diagram 33.7 Model for Litigation................................................................ 544
Diagram 33.8 Model for Transactions........................................................... 545
Diagram 33.9 Model for Using Law.............................................................. 545
Table of Foreign Language Expressions

a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid1 ...... 72, 80, 579, 586, 594
a posteriori .......................................................................................... 73
a priori .................................................... 18, 75, 96, 109, 119, 201, 261
analogia .............................................................................................. 87
anima legis........................................................................................ 294
bona vacantia ............................................................................ 456, 464
ceteris paribus................................................................................... 184
communis error facit ius/lex...................................................... 155-156
consimile debet esse remedium .......................................................... 90
contemporanea expositio est optima et fortissima in lege................ 366
contra bonos mores et decorum.......................................................... 67
contra proferentem .......................................................................... 360
De Laudibus Legum Angliae ........................................................... 249
de similibus idem est judicium2 .......................................................... 96
eiusdem generis ......................................................................... 396-397
ex cathedra........................................................................................ 342
expressio unius exclusio alterius est.......................................... 396-398
extremis malis extrema remedia....................................................... 155
fiat justitia et ruant caeli. ................................................................. 284
generalia specialibus non derogant........................................... 396, 398
hedone .............................................................................................. 233
hier stehe ich. Ich kann nicht anders. Gott helfe mir........................ 184
homo economicus....................................................................... 17, 233
homo sapiens ................................................................................ 15, 16
homo sentiens ..................................................................................... 16
in consimili casu ............................................................................ 89-90
in gremio judicis3 .............................................................................. 312
in gremio judicium4 .............................................................. 54, 79, 294
in gremio legis5 ................................................................................. 313
in pari materia..................................................................................... 89
inter arma leges sunt silentia ............................................................ 280
ius gentium ....................................................................................... 293
je suis que je suis, mais je ne suis pas que je suis ............................ 382
lucet ipsa per se ............................................................................... 403
modus ponendo ponens ...................................................................... 42
modus ponens ..................................................................................... 42
necessitas non habet legem....................................................... 277, 284

1. This expression is sometimes abbreviated to secundum quid.

2. There is another similar expression – similibus ad similia (qv).
3. There are two other similar expression – in gremio judicium (qv) and in gremio legis (qv) .
4. There are two other similar expression – in gremio judicis (qv) and in gremio legis (qv).
5. There are two other similar expression – in gremio judicis (qv) and in gremio judicium
(qv).

xxxiii
 xxxiv Table of Foreign Language Expressions

neminem oportet esse sapientiorem legibus ..................................... 294

nemo debet esse iudex in propria sua causa ..................................... 372
non sub homine, sed sub deo et sub lege .......................................... 291
noscitur a sociis..................................................................365, 396-397
obiter dicta ................................................................ 380, 392, 517, 522
obiter dictum ............................................................. 392, 507, 518, 521
omnia vincit amor ............................................................................. 278
panem et circenses ............................................................................ 321
post ergo propter ............................................................................... 248
pro bono public ..................................................313, 346-347, 360, 371
pro privato commodo.................................................313, 346-347, 371
probanda............................................................................................ 185
quot homines tot sententiae............................................................... 414
ratio decidendi............ 151, 380, 382, 392, 505, 507, 517-521, 530-531
rationes decidendi ............................................................................. 392
reddendo singula singulis..................................................................xvii
secundum quid6 ..................................................... 78, 80, 579, 586, 594
segnius irritant animos demissa per aures quam quæ sunt
oculis subjecta fidelibus....................................................................427
similibus ad similia7 ............................................................................ 90
stare decisis ..........................151-152, 380-389, 391-392, 521-522, 536
stare decisis et non quieta movere ............................................ 392, 522
tabula rasa ......................................................................................... 188
travaux préparitoires ......................................................................... 371
verba chartarum fortius accipiuntur contra proferentem .................. 360
wertrational ......................................................................................... 18
zweckrational .............................................................................. 18, 450

6. Secundum quid is an abbreviation for a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid.

7 There is another similar expression – de similibus idem est judicium (qv).
Labels
Introduction
Describing Items
Listing Items
Diagrams
Probability

Introduction
Discussion in this publication refers to items such as a statute or a meaning of an
ambiguous provision. Often these are part of a collection, list, range or set of items.
Frequently the text puts them in a diagram where they represent a model or a step on
the way to explaining a model. The purpose here is to explain the labelling system
used to refer to these items.

Describing Items
Labelling Items
There are several aspects to labelling the items in a set, range, list or collection. These
are name, number, letter and designating a set of items.

Name
The name of an item commences with a capital letter. Some examples are Element,
Statute and Meaning.

Number
Items in a set, range, list or collection are generally numbered. For example, the
elements of a legal rule are labelled Element 1, Element 2, Element 3 and so on. These
numbers are ways of identifying elements and distinguishing one from another. They
are generally not intended to create any list according to preferences or values.

Letter
Items in a set, range, list or collection can be lettered. For example a list of statutes can
be Statute A, Statute B and so on.

Designating a Set of Items

It is useful to designate a set of items with a single and simple tag. Here is an outline.
The basic proposition is that a simple and obvious tag has two aspects:
1. Description. Use a written label on the items as a tag or description. Put it in plural
form. Thus a tag for a set of statutes would be ‘Elements’.
2. Numbers. After the tag add a space then a compound numerical tag consisting of
three items:
2.1 The number of the first item in the set.
2.2 A hyphen.
2.3 The number of the last item in the set.

xxxv
 xxxvi Labels

Here are two illustrations:

1. A set of six elements would be Elements 1-6.
2. A set of elements where the number can vary from situation to situation is written as
Elements 1-n.

1. Naming the Items

The item has a name, which is usually obvious. For example each statute in a set of
statutes would bear the name ‘Statute’, and each elements in a set of elements would
be ‘Element’.

2. Numbering the Items

There are two possibilities for the numbering of a set, list or range of items:
1. There can be a fixed number in the set.
2. There can be a variable number in the set.

2.1 Fixed Number in the Set

In a particular instance there may be a specific number of items in a set. For example a
particular legal rule might be composed of five elements. In this case the first and last
numbers designate the number of items in the set or range. In this example of a set of
five elements, one would designate the set as ‘Elements 1-5’.

2.2 Variable Number in the Set

Sometimes the text refers to a set or a list in general terms in cases where the number
of items in the set can vary from situation to situation. In this event, the way to go is to
number the last item with the symbol ‘n’. To refresh readers, ‘n’ stands for however
many there are on a particular occasion. An example would be a general discussion
about elements of a legal rule. In this case the possibilities vary from legal rule to legal
rule. Thus the designation of this set of items is Elements 1-n.

Null Option
There is a special case with options where one of the options is to do nothing and leave
things as they are. This occurs, for example, with the proposed making of a statute
where one option is just not to enact a statute. In a case such as this the option is
labelled with the symbol for nought, namely ‘0’. Thus the option not to enact a statute
is designated as Statute 0. Statute 0 represents the null option – it is the option for a
legislature not to enact a statute on a topic whereas Statutes 1, 2 3 and so on are
options for different versions of a statute on a topic (on the basis that there is no form
of a statute that can better present conditions). Given this the full set or range of
possible statutes for a legislature to enact consists of Statutes 0-n.

Corresponding Items
Sometimes there are sets with corresponding items. This can occur for a number of
reasons. Here are two examples:
1. For making and interpreting law, items correspond because of causation. Each
version of a statute on a subject and each meaning of an ambiguous provision will
 Labels xxxvii

cause an effect if a legislature enacts the statute or if a court declares the meaning to be
legally correct.
2. In the model for litigation, elements and facts correspond because each element
delineates a category of facts so that in a particular case the element is satisfied by a
fact that falls within that category. Similarly, facts and evidence correspond because
each fact is proved or potentially provable by some evidence.

Single Relationships
Corresponding items are labelled with the same number or letter. Here are some
illustrations:
1. Statutes, Meanings and their Predicted Effects. Statute 0 is predicted to cause Effect
0, Statute 1 is predicted to cause Effect 1, Statute 2 is predicted to cause Effect 2 and
so on. Meaning 1 is predicted to causes Effect 1, Meaning 2 is predicted to cause
Effect 2 and so on. Similarly, Statute X (or Meaning X) is predicted to cause Effect X
while Statute Y (or Meaning Y) is predicted to cause Effect Y.
2. Facts Satisfying Elements. Fact 1 is the label given to a fact that fits within or
satisfies Element 1, Fact 2 is the label given to a fact that fits within or satisfies
Element 2 and so on.
3. Evidence Proving Facts. Evidence 1 is the label given to evidence that might prove
or has proved Fact 1, Evidence 2 is the label given to evidence that might prove or has
proved Fact 2, and so on.

Collective Relationships
It is possible to use labels of correspondence to make collective statements. Here are
some examples: Statutes 0-n are predicted to cause Effects 0-n, while Evidence 1-n is
capable of proving Facts 1-n. To construe these collective statements properly it is
necessary to apply the maxim reddendo singula singulis. Literally this says that each is
rendered on their own. In plainer language, the items are to be taken singularly so the
each item in the first list is paired with the corresponding item in the second list. The
adverb ‘respectively’ captures this notion.

Two or More Version of an Item

There may be two or more versions of an item. Additional letters or numbers can
distinguish the different versions. For example:
1. If Element 2 is ambiguous because it has two meanings, the versions of Element 2
can be designated Element 2A and Element 2B.
2. There can be two versions of a fact. There are two major possibilities:
2.1 In a case there may be two versions of Fact 2 because the plaintiff propounds
one and the defendant propounds the other. These can be designated ‘P’ and ‘D’ to
signify the plaintiff and defendant’s version. Thus the two versions are Fact 2P and
Fact 2D.
2.2 After investigating the facts of a case the defendant may find that there is
evidence to support two versions of one of the facts in their case. These are facts that
the defendant could use to rebut the plaintiff’s satisfying Element 3. The defendant or
the court could designate these as Fact 3D.1 and Fact 3D.2.
 xxxviii Labels

Subdivisions of Items
It is possible to designate subdivisions of an item with a numbering system that
invokes the form but not the meaning of decimal points. Thus if Element 2 has three
sub-elements, one can designate them as Element 2.1, Element 2.2, and Element 2.3. If
Element 2.2 has three sub-elements we can designate these as Element 2.2.1, Element
2.2.2 and Element 2.2.3. Obviously this form of numbering adapts to any number of
levels of subdivision.

Possibilities: ‘X’, ‘Y’, Etc

Sometimes the text needs to refer to any option, that is, to an option in general terms.
Conveniently this is labelled with a capital letter. Commonly, this is the letter X, so
that a general option for a legislature wishing to pass a statute is Statute X. Naturally,
if there is a need to refer to more than one option additional letters may be used. For
example, there could be reference to Statute X and Statute Y; in this case Statute X is
one possible statute and Statute Y is another possible statute.

Signifying Relationships
Sometimes it is necessary to signify a relationship between two items. This can be
done using standard symbols. This table sets out the major possibilities:

Symbol Relationship Illustration

< Less than X<Y. X is less than Y.
> Greater than X>Y. X is greater than Y.
= Equals X=Y. X equals Y,
≠ Not Equals X≠Y. X does not equal Y.
≈ Approximately Equals X≈Y. X is approximately equal to Y.
≡ Congruence Relationship X≡Y. X is congruent with Y.
≅ Isomorphic X≅Y. X is structurally identical to Y
Labels Diagram 1. Symbols for Relationships

Listing Items
Where there is a list, for example a list of the meanings of an ambiguous provision, we
can set these out in the text as a series – Meaning 1, Meaning 2 ... Meaning n. In the
text, as we have noted, the range can be efficiently represented as Meanings 1-n. In a
table they are set out as a list in the following way:

Meanings
Meaning 1
Meaning 2
Meaning n
Labels Diagram 2. List of Meanings
 Labels xxxix

In this presentation it is not strictly necessary to include Meaning 2. Indeed, it is

actually redundant, when n=2. However, it usefully emphasises the sense of a list that
sets out the range of options or possibilities.

Diagrams
Lists in a table can be connected to become a diagram or figure. This can involve
corresponding items. A useful illustration consists of a diagram that has two major
columns that match corresponding items. One column sets out the meanings of an
ambiguous provision in a statute in Statute X and the other sets out the effect for the
whole statute that each meaning is predicted to cause. Here is the illustration:

1 2 3
Meanings → Effects 1
Meaning 1 Effect 1 2
Meaning 2 Effect 2 3
Meaning n Effect n 4
Labels Diagram 3. Meanings and Effects

This diagram functions in the following way:

* Column 1 shows the meanings of the ambiguous provision, being Meanings 1-n.
* Column 3 shows the effect of the statue that each meaning is predicted to cause if a
court chooses them as the legally correct meaning of the ambiguous provision. Let us
flesh this out. Every statute that is enacted causes a number of outcomes. The author
refers to the full collection of outcomes that a statute is predicted to cause as an effect.
When a court interprets a statute it is faced with the basic options in terms of the range
of meanings of the ambiguous provision that gives rise to the need to interpret the
statute. The diagram labels these meanings as Meanings 1-n. If a court decides that
Meaning 1 is the legally correct meaning of the ambiguous provision that decision is
likely to have an impact on the effect that the whole statute will cause. Column 3, as
stated, sets out this effect, the effect of the whole statute, for Meaning 1. In a similar
way it sets out the effect for each other meaning of the ambiguous provision. This
method of identifying the effects of each meaning caters for the constitutional rule in
each Australian jurisdiction that requires a court to interpret a statute in the way that
will ‘best achieve’ the purpose and object for which the legislature enacted the statute.
Now the purpose or object of a statute is to cause some effect or outcome. Hence the
term ‘Effect’ aligns directly with purpose and object (which of course is why the table
includes it).
* Column 2 contains an arrow pointing from the Column 1 to Column 3, thereby
indicating that each meaning in Column 1 is predicted to cause the statute to have the
corresponding effect in Column 3.
* Columns 1-3 indicate meanings and their predicted effects. Assume for the purposes
of the explanation that a court is interpreting an ambiguous provision in Statute X that
has Meanings 1-3:
 xl Labels

1. If a court chooses Meaning 1 as the legally correct meaning the prediction is that
Statute X will cause Effect 1.
2. If a court chooses Meaning 2 as the legally correct meaning the prediction is that
Statute X will cause Effect 2.
3. If a court chooses Meaning 3 as the legally correct meaning the prediction is that
Statute X will cause Effect 3.

Probability
A number of symbols are used for probability. This diagram shows the common
symbols and their meanings:

Symbol Meaning
P(A) probability that event A occurs
P(B) probability that event B occurs
P(A B) probability that event A or event B occurs (A union B)
P(A B) probability that event A and event B both occur (A intersection B)
P(A’) probability that event A does not occur
P(A | B) probability that event A occurs given that event B has occurred already
(conditional probability)
P(B | A) probability that event B occurs given that event A has occurred already
(conditional probability)
P(B | A’) probability that event B occurs given that event A has not occurred
already (conditional probability)
φ the empty set = an impossible event
S the sample space = an event that is certain to occur
Labels Diagram 4. Symbols Used for Probability
Summary
Introduction
A. Rationality and Irrationality
B. Methods of Reasoning
Logical Reasoning
Policy
Analysing Ambiguity
Observing Facts
C. Tasks with Law
Structuring Law
Forming Law
Using Law
Commentary

Introduction
Benefits of a Summary
This summary highlights both the key concepts and the relationships between them.
This benefit may be needed since the subject of this book is hard wrought. Readers
may benefit from this summary at any of three stages – before, during and after
reading the book or part of it:
# Before Reading. Before reading the book the summary indicates the shape and
rationale of what is to come
# During Reading. If during the course of reading the reader is overcome by detail it
may settle the structure and benefit their understanding to read the summary.
# After Reading. When a reader has finished the book reading a summary is a way of
refreshing and recapping.

Methods of Reasoning and Legal Tasks

Methods of reasoning are use for performing tasks with law. From a structural
perspective it would be simple if each task had its own distinctive method of
reasoning. Unfortunately this is not the case. Some methods of reasoning apply to
more then one task, while some tasks incorporate more than one method of reasoning.

A. Rationality and Irrationality

To entitle a book Legal Reasoning connotes a distinction between the rational and the
irrational, although the distinction may not be hard and fast and is contestable:
# Chapter 1 Outline and Chapter 2 Rationality make some attempt to deal with
rationality. At the same time they make some mention of irrationality, as a way of
introducing it before fuller discussion in Chapter 27.
# Chapter 27 Irrationality presents some alleged manifestations of, and reasons for,
irrationality in the world.

xli
xlii Summary

B. Methods of Reasoning
There are several methods of reasoning involved in law:
# Logical reasoning
# Policy
# Analysing ambiguity
# Observing facts

Logical Reasoning
Introduction
The basic forms of logical reasoning are conditional statements,1 deduction,2
induction,3 abduction,4 analogy5 and probability.6 Chapter 3 explains conditional
statements. Chapters 4 outlines the other major forms of logical reasoning, which are
explained in subsequent chapters.

These forms of reasoning bob up and down in various places on the map of legal
reasoning. Each of the chapters describing these forms of reasoning indicates the
places where they are used. This summary now provides an outline of their
fundamentals.

Conditional Statements
A conditional statement takes the form ‘If A occurs then B subsequently occurs’. Most
legal rules are conditional statements. They take the form: ‘If facts of a designated
kind occur, these legal consequences follow.’ This is an extremely important analytical
tool for working with law.7

Deduction
Deduction is a logically perfect form of reasoning. Deduction involves a form of
reasoning called a syllogism.8 This has three parts, a major premise a minor premise
and a conclusion that follows from the two premises. The major relevance of
deduction is in the process of using law when law applies to facts to generate legal
consequences:
# Major Premise. The major premise is constituted by the legal rule that creates the
cause of action. This, as stated above, consists of a conditional statement. The major
premise accordingly says: ‘If facts of a designated kind occur, these legal
consequences follow.’
# Minor Premise. The minor premise says: ‘Facts of this designated kind have
occurred.’

1. Chapter 3 Structuring Law. Commentary 32.1.

2. Chapter 5 Deduction
3. Chapter 6 Induction
4. Chapter 7 Abduction
5. Chapter 8 Analogy
6. Chapter 9 Probability
7. Chapter 3 Structuring Law
8. Chapter 5 Deduction
 Summary xliii

# Conclusion. The conclusion says: ‘The consequences designated by the rule now
apply’.

This syllogism can be set out in a table:

Components Relationships
Major Premise If facts of a designated kind occur, these legal consequences
follow.
Minor Premise Facts of this designated kind have occurred.
Conclusion The consequences designated by the rule now apply.
Summary Diagram 1 Syllogism for Applying Law to Facts

Induction
A simple example will illustrate induction. We observe, directly or indirectly, that the
sun has risen every day of our lives and for many days before that. Given this we may
include from these observations that the sun always rises. This shows how induction
works. Essentially when many observations of things happening in a certain way with
no exceptions it suggests that things always happen in this way. Induction can be
formally set out in the following way:

Premise In all observed instances something, called X, occurs when Y occurs.

Conclusion There is a rule, Rule R, which says: ‘X always occurs when Y occurs.
Summary Diagram 2 Form of Induction

Abduction
Abduction seeks explanations for events.9 Let us assume that B has occurred. Assume
also that there are four identifiable possible explanations (or hypotheses) for the
occurrence of B, namely X causes B, Y causes B, Z causes B and A causes B.
Investigation suggests that the most likely or plausible explanation is that A causes B.

Observation B has occurred

Explanation There is a rule, Rule R, that says ‘A causes B’.
Strength of Explanation No other explanation explains B as well as Rule R.
Conclusion Therefore, Rule R that ‘A causes B’ is probably correct.
Summary Diagram 3 Form of Abduction

Probability
Probability has a descriptive function. It describes how certain we are about the truth
of something. For example, when we require reassurance about something we ask:
‘Are you 100% sure?’

Probability also has a derivative function, which is how it operates as a form of

reasoning. When one or more probabilities are known and quantified, it is possible to

9. This explanation of abduction is taken directly from Chapter 4 Logical Reasoning.

xliv Summary

derive further probabilities by rules based on deduction. For example, if there is a 60%
chance that an event will happen we can use the complementarity rule to devise the
probability that the event will not happen. The probability of an event not happening is
the complement of the probability that it will happen. In the example the probability of
the event not happening is (100-60)% namely 40%.

Policy
Frequently humans engage in purposive action, where they take action to achieve a
purpose. Making law constitute purposive action and interpreting law does so
sometimes. Those engaging in purposive action make a rational decision where they
identify and choose the option that achieves the best result in terms of both costs and
benefits. This is the outcome with the highest net benefit. This means that the outcome
is as successful as human endeavour can make it. It is impossible to do better than this
or to be more rational than this.10 Law changes the world so for making and
interpreting law, the desired outcome is to change the world in the best possible way.

Policy involves two difficult tasks:

1. Causation. Policy makers have to predict the outcome that each option will cause.
2. Evaluation. Policy makers must have an available set of values to evaluate each
option to determine the best, which is the one that causes the best outcome.

Analysing Ambiguity
When a court interprets law it needs to identify all of the meanings of the ambiguous
provision. To do this a court needs the skill of analysing ambiguity.11 The task can be
made easier by using a classification of ambiguity as a tool of analysis.12

Observing Facts
Observing facts is really the prelude to the reasoning process here. The reasoning is
that seeing is believing. This is widely accepted as true, but with a qualification.
Sometimes we do not see what we think we see. There is an additional problem in
practice. The notion of ‘seeing is believing’ underlies a witness’s giving evidence in
court of what they have seen and also what they have observed with their other senses.
The additional problem is that the court hearing this evidence cannot be sure that the
witness is telling the truth.

C. Tasks with Law

There are four tasks with law to consider:

Structuring Law Interpreting Law

Making Law Using Law

10. This explanation of policy taken directly from Chapter 10 Policy.

11. Chapter 25 Analysing Ambiguity
12. Christopher Enright Legal Method Chapter 14 Classifying Meanings
 Summary xlv

As the text explains these tasks it will indicate the types of reasoning that they
incorporate.

Structuring Law
Unfortunately the concept of structuring or organising or analysing legal rules is
unfamiliar to many lawyers, yet it is the key to numerous other tasks. There are two
aspects to structure – micro structure and macro structure.13

Micro Structure
With a few exceptions that do not matter, all legal rules have a common structure
(called the micro structure because it applies to particular rules and not a whole area of
law). There are two basic components – (i) elements that determine the type of facts to
which the rule applies and (ii) the consequences that the rule brings when it does
apply. The third part of a rule is really its overall shape or nature. It consists of a
conditional statement that says as follow – when the elements of a rule apply to the
facts of a case the consequences designated by the rule apply.

The following diagram portrays the format for the micro structure of a legal rule. It
portrays Elements 1-n. It depicts the Consequences. It represents the conditional
statement by an arrow that joins elements to consequences. This is saying that when
the right types of facts satisfy the elements, the consequences apply:

Law
Element 1
Element 2
Element n
↓
Consequences
Summary Diagram 4 Model for Organising Law

Macro Structure
There are three key propositions:
# Any area of law or a legal subject has an overall or macro structure.
# But unlike the situation with individual legal rules there is not a standard structure
that applies to all rules but a variety of structures (although some structure are shared
among a few areas of law).
# There is no standard technique for finding the overall structure but in practice it is
not difficult. Look for the relationships between the various parts of the subject, which
are generally not difficult to find, especially if a person does two things:
1. Think. They think carefully about the area of activity that the subject regulates.
2. Look. They look with a fierce intent.

13. Chapter 3 Structuring Legal Rules and Chapter 29 Model for Organising Law
xlvi Summary

Benefits of Structuring Law

Structuring law is a gateway to heaven because proper performance of every other
major task with law depends on it. These tasks include making law, interpreting law,
using law in litigation, using law in transactions, reading law, writing law, teaching
law and studying law.

Two specific comments will highlight the problem caused by the neglect of the skill of
organising law.
1. Teaching Law. Teaching law is diminished. It is sad to see the efforts of dedicated
and knowledgeable teachers squandered to a significant extent by lack of knowledge
of the reasoning processes requires to structure law. In the biblical phrase it is akin to
making bricks without straw.14
2. Writing Law. There is a feasible argument that the widely recognised problem of the
poor quality of legal writing is not really a plain English problem but, to some extent
at least, a manifestation of the fact that most lawyer do not understand how to structure
law. In other words it is an organisational problem that is easily solved – teach lawyers
how to structure law and it is likely that you will teach them how to write more clearly.

Forming Law
Introduction
Introduction
Forming law is a collective name for two similar and connected tasks, making law and
interpreting law.

Making Law
Making law happens in three ways:
# a legislature enacts a statute
# some official or body makes delegated legislation pursuant to power conferred on
them by statute
# a court makes a new common law rule or amends a common law rule

Interpreting Law
When a court interprets law it decides which of two or more possible meanings of an
ambiguous provision is the legally correct or best meaning of the ambiguous
provision. This law may be statute law, delegated legislation or common law.

Methods of Reasoning
Policy
This book argues that policy is the only rational way to make and interpret law. There
is a summary of policy below.

14. Commentary 32.2.

 Summary xlvii

Other Methods
Four other methods are used, or in the view of some are used, for interpreting law.
These are deduction, precedent, maxims of interpretation and secondary sources.

Policy
Introduction
The word ‘policy’ can be ambiguous. In one sense it is a set way of doing things as in
the statement: ‘We have a policy of checking all applicants carefully.’ A second
meaning is the one used here where it refers to a method of reasoning that seeks the
best outcome. Policy is used for making law and interpreting law.

Nature of Policy
Any law or any interpretation of a law will cause some outcome or effect. The
controlling proposition is that it is rational to want the best and irrational to want
anything less than the best. Consequently reasoning with policy involves identifying
then choosing and implementing the version of a law or the interpretation of a law that
is predicted to cause the best outcome.

In order to choose the best it is necessary to identify all possibilities. To illustrate this,
assume that a legislature is contemplating making a law on a subject such as consumer
protection, industrial regulation, housing or education. The possible statutes are
labelled ‘Statute’ and numbered for identification. Statute 0 is the option not to enact a
statute. Statutes 1–n are the possible versions of statutes on the topic. Now each statute
will cause an effect, although prior to passing a statute the best a legislature can do is
to predict its likely effect. Since policy is concerned with the best outcome it is
necessary to measure the outcome. Net benefit is the way to go. It consists of total
benefit minus total costs. All of this can be conveniently represented in a table in the
following way:

Statutes → Effects → Net Benefit

Statute 0 Effect 0 Net Benefit 0
Statute 1 Effect 1 Net Benefit 1
Statute 2 Effect 2 Net Benefit 2
Statute n Effect n Net Benefit n
Summary Diagram 5 Statutes, Effects and Net Benefits

Let us assume that the net benefit with the highest value is Net Benefit 2. This is the
net benefit of Effect 2. Effect 2 is the predicted effect of Statute 2. This means that
Statute 2 is the best statute to enact since it is predicted to cause the best outcome –
Effect 2, which yields Net Benefit 2.

Similar reasoning applies to interpreting law in the absence of specific rules as to how
to do it. Assume that a provision (a word or a phrase) in a legal rule is ambiguous such
that it may or may not apply in a particular case. The court must identify all possible
xlviii Summary

meanings of the ambiguous provision. The possible meanings of this ambiguous word
or phrase are labelled Meanings 1–n. There is generally not a Meaning 0 because a
court normally does not have an option when faced with ambiguity – it cannot decline
to interpret the provision. Each meaning causes an effect so that collectively Meanings
1–n are predicted to cause Effects 1–n. Each effect yields a net benefit so that Effects
1–n yield Net Benefits 1–n. These relationships can be set out in a table in the
following way:

Meanings → Effects → Net Benefit

Meaning 1 Effect 1 Net Benefit 1
Meaning 2 Effect 2 Net Benefit 2
Meaning n Effect n Net Benefit n
Summary Diagram 6 Meanings, Effects and Net Benefits

At one level policy is simple. However, there are some major uncertainties that arise
within or around the process of making policy decisions. There are two core issues that
pervade the process:
1. Causation. A legislature or court has to determine or predict what Effect (meaning a
batch of effects) a statute or a meaning of an ambiguous provision will cause.
2. Evaluation. A legislature or court has to evaluate each effect to establish its net
benefit. There are two issues here:
2.1 Values. There is a question as to the nature of values:
2.2 Incommensurability. There is a problem of measuring net benefit, which is
labelled incommensurability.

There are two additional problems:

1. Social Choice. The choice to determine the questions of causation and evaluation is
a social choice. The problem is how to make this choice in a representative way, that
is, in a manner such that the ensuing choice represents the wishes of the individuals
who make up the society in question.
2. Analysing Ambiguity. To identify the meanings of an ambiguous provision
(Meanings 1–n) when interpreting law it is necessary to be able to analyse and
understand ambiguity.

Problem 1. Causation
When a legislature is enacting a statute ideally it has before it all possible versions of
the proposed statute. These are labelled Statutes 0–n. Since the legislature is reasoning
by reference to policy it needs to predict as best it can the effect (shorthand for batch
of effects) that each statute will cause.

Once the court has predicted these effects it then calculates the net benefit of each
effect. This enables it to enact the best statute, being the statute that causes (is
predicted to cause) the effect that yields the highest net benefit.
 Summary xlix

When courts interpret a statute they may engage in a process that is similar to that used
for making law. They identify all of the meanings of the ambiguous provision. Then
they seek to predict the effect that each meaning will cause if a court declares it to be
the legally correct meaning of the provision. They then seek the best meaning. Or they
seek the meaning that some dominant rule or criterion requires them to seek, for
example the meaning that best promotes the policy that underlies the statute.

How should a legislature or court go about the task of predicting causation? The
answer is one or both of two broad possibilities. There is some causal law that makes
predicting causation scientific, or there is the absence of such a law so that law-makers
and interpreters need to rely on non scientific means.

Scientific Means: Causal Law

In the simple and ideal case there is a causal law that enables a legislature or court to
predict the effect that a statute or a meaning of an ambiguous provision will cause.
Natural science, and often social science, ascertains and attempts to prove the
existence of causal laws by several processes,15 which use various methods of logical
reasoning:
1. Hypothetico-Deductive Model. This uses a mixture of deduction and induction.16
2. Experimental Method. This uses a mixture of deduction and induction.17
3. Correlation Method. This uses a mixture of induction and abduction.18

Non Scientific Means

There are two reasons why legislators and judges will not always deploy scientifically
based behavioural laws when making and interpreting law.19 First, behavioural science
is incomplete. It can explain some things but not everything. Second, legislators and
judges are generally not trained in behavioural science. Consequently, even if there is
a relevant causal law, they may not know of its existence.

For both of these reasons, legislators and judges are sometimes forced to rely on causal
laws that are not properly grounded in science. In truth, these are assumptions. These
assumptions may be derived from sources such as hunch, guesswork and impression,
all being processes which are not ‘readily susceptible of precise analysis’.20

Problem 2. Evaluation
The operative maxim that underlies policy is the seemingly tautological statement
‘best is best’. Essentially legislatures and courts should seek the best outcome because
this is the only rational way to proceed. While the notion that legislatures and courts
should seek the best outcome is logically impeccable, there is an issue of evaluation.

15. Chapter 13 Cause

16. Commentary 32.3.
17. Chapter 5 Deduction and Chapter 6 Induction
18. Chapter 6 Induction and Chapter 7 Abduction
19. Chapter 13 Cause
20. Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Chubb (1995) 128 ALR 489
l Summary

The issue is how one determines the value or values by which legislatures and courts
should judge which outcome is really the best. There are three possible views on the
nature of values:
1. Unity of Values. According to this view there is a comprehensive, universal and
binding set of values that applies to all people at all times (as natural law proclaims).
The problem with this view is that there is so far no way that the existence and binding
force of these values can be discovered by reason. Deduction, induction and abduction
are of no assistance – there is no method of reasoning that can establish the existence
of a comprehensive, universal and binding set of values. However, it is possible to use
analogy to make new common rules derived from similar and appropriate values in an
existing common law rule.21
2. Diversity of Values. In extreme form this view sees values as highly diverse with
little agreement as to what values should underpin society. This extreme view does not
hold up since there is a significant amount of values being shared.22
3. Mixture of Unity and Diversity of Values. This view is that a society and even the
world at large will exhibit some degree of unity of values and some degree of
diversity. Since this view is founded on widespread observation it is the view taken by
the author and the basis for any consequential analysis of policy.23

Problem 3.1 Social Choice: Making Law

An individual can decide and act by reference to any values that they choose.
However, there is a problem when a choice has to be made by society as distinct from
being made by an individual. How can society make a choice in a manner that truly
represents the preferences of the individuals who compose that society? Traditionally
the answer both in theory and practice comes from representative democracy.24
Parliament represents the people because they vote for it and any choice that
parliament makes is perfectly representative of the wishes of the people, which are
underpinned by their values.

Despite the superficial appeal of this solution, there is one problem in principle and a
second problem in practice. The problem in principle was discovered by Kenneth
Arrow and described in his impossibility theorem. It is impossible for a representative
body such as a legislature to reflect perfectly the preferences of voters. The answer to
this objection is three fold. The legislature is still representative to some significant
extent. A government can compensate for defects in representation by participatory
democracy in the form of public debate and consultation with people affected by a
proposal. There is no more representative way of making a social choice for enacting
legislation.

The problem in practice is that the function of representative democracy can be marred
by failure to take sufficient steps to implement democracy. These involve, for

21. Commentary 32.4.

22. Chapter 19 Choice of Values
23. Chapter 19 Choice of Values
24. Chapter 21 Social Choice: Making Law
 Summary li

example, providing as full access to government information as can be achieved and a

free media, especially with regard to radio and television broadcasting.

Problem 3.2 Social Choice: Interpreting Law

When reasoning by reference to policy the logical approach is to identify the meaning
of the ambiguous provision that causes the best effect and to make this the legally
correct meaning of the provision. The best effect is the one that possesses the highest
net benefit. There is, however, debate as to who should judge what is the best effect.25
There are three major sides to this debate, which are here labelled judicial legitimacy,
legislative legitimacy and metademocracy. There will now be a brief explanation of
these approaches to interpretation.26

Judicial Legitimacy
Judicial legitimacy is feasible in jurisdictions where judges are elected. Because of
their election the judges have some claim to legitimacy in making their own
assessment as to which effect is best. On this basis, each judge forms their own
opinion as to which meaning yields the highest net benefit.

Legislative Legitimacy
Legislative legitimacy arises because the people elect the legislature. In this case the
court refrains from exercising its own independent judgment as to the best effect based
on the court’s calculation of net benefit. Instead it yields to legislative intent on the
basis that a statute ‘should be construed according to the intent of the [legislature]
which passed the Act’.27 The court interprets the statute in the way that the legislature
wanted it to be interpreted as it defers to the judgment of the legislature for
determining the most desirable outcome.

Metademocracy
Instead of deferring to the judgment of the legislature as to how to interpret a statute, a
court might interpret a statute by taking into account the defects in representative
democracy both in principle and in practice. This approach is called metademocracy. It
involves interpreting the statute in the way it would be interpreted if the legislature
were composed and functioning in a proper way so that it were truly democratic
(instead of the partially formed democracy that now exists). Obviously to interpret by
this means the court has to somehow divine an imputed popular intent by determining
what the people would have wanted. This is no easy task and may involve a substantial
degree of guesswork or speculation. Consequently, the result will not possess a high
degree of certainty in its claim to be the best meaning.

Table of Options
These options are set out below in the table below. Column 1 lists the meanings of the
provision. Column 3 lists the actual predicted effect of each meaning. Column 5 sets

25. Chapter 21 Social Choice: Interpreting Law

26. See Christopher Enright Legal Reasoning Chapter 22 Social Choice: Interpreting Law.
27. Sussex Peerage Case (1844) 11 Cl & F 85, 143; 8 ER 1034, 1057
lii Summary

out the three schools of thought – legislative legitimacy, judicial legitimacy and
metademocracy – on the desired effects that a court should achieve when it interprets a
statute. These are the options for the court to use in the task of interpretation. They are
put in square brackets to show that they are not at this stage actually matching one of
the actual effects. They are simply the options for matching depending on how the
court chooses to interpret the provision. This is the diagram:

Meanings → Actual Effects =/≈ Desired Effects

Meaning 1 Effect 1 [Legislative Legitimacy]
Meaning 2 Effect 1 [Judicial Legitimacy]
Meaning n Effect 1 [Metademocracy]
Summary Diagram 7 Meanings, Actual Effects and Desired Effects

Problem 4. Analysing Ambiguity

To interpret law a court must identify the various meanings of the ambiguous
provision that gives rise to the need for interpretation.28 These meanings can be
designated Meanings 1–n. Identifying Meanings 1–n performs three valuable
functions:
1. The Problems. They represent the problem – which of them is the legally correct
meaning?
2. The Answer. The range contains the answer – one of them must be the legally
correct meaning (or two or more are legally correct).
3. The Focus. They create the focus for arguments put to the court – any argument
must be directed towards a meaning either to promote it as being the legally correct
meaning or to unpromote it as not being the legally correct meaning.

There are three techniques for analysing ambiguity to detect correctly the various
meanings that it embraces:
1. Consult a reputable English dictionary.
2. Try out the word in various contexts.
3. Use a developed classification of ambiguity to assist.29

Other Methods
Introduction
Policy is arguably king in the field of making and interpreting law.30 It is the only
legitimate means of interpreting statutes since it identifies and indorses the best
achievable outcome. Nevertheless there are some other claimants to the throne. These
are deduction, precedent, rules or maxims of interpretation and secondary sources all
of which can be put forward as possible ways of interpreting law.

28. Chapter 25 Analysing Ambiguity

29. Christopher Enright Legal Method Chapter 14 Classifying Meanings
30. Chapter 30 Model for Forming Law
 Summary liii

Deduction
To analyse the argument that interpreting law is rationally and objectively based on the
process of deduction it is necessary to identify the form that the relevant syllogism
would take. It is a syllogism involving propositional logic. For the syllogism to be
sound there must be a rule, that is labelled Rule X, which provides a specific and
correct answer for cases of interpretation of a designated kind, labelled Category Y.
This syllogism takes the following form:

Major Premise Rule X provides a specific and correct answer for cases of
interpretation in Category Y.
Minor Premise This particular case falls into Category Y.
Conclusion Therefore, Rule X applies in this case and so provides a specific
and correct answer.
Summary Diagram 8 Syllogism for Interpreting Law

Clearly, this syllogism depends on the content of Rule X. If Rule X provides one, and
only one, identifiable and correct answer to the question of interpretation, the process
is syllogistic. There are in fact four possibilities for Rule X:
Possibility 1. Rule X is an objective rule of interpretation. The problem with this
possibility is that the rules of interpretation are rarely determinative since they are
generally mere presumptions or guidelines.
Possibility 2. Rule X is a word having a fixed literal and undisputable meaning. The
problem with this possibility is two fold. Words rarely have a fixed literal and
undisputable meaning. Not all forms of ambiguity arise within words. For example
some arise from syntax or the order of words.
Possibility 3. Rule X is a rule that requires a court to interpret law by reference to a
clearly identified unambiguous policy that has already been formed by the legislature.
In this case the process is, at least on the outside, syllogistic. However, to illustrate one
problem with this possibility, when viewed from another perspective interpreting law
in this way does not constitute a perfect syllogism. Instead, the court is adopting and
transmitting a choice that was made earlier in the legislative process when the
common law was made or the statute was enacted. So at best it is a soft form of
deduction.
Possibility 4. Rule X is a rule that requires a court to interpret law by reference to a
precedent that has already interpreted the law. In this case the process is, at least on the
outside, syllogistic. But as with interpreting law by reference to preformed policy, the
view changes dramatically when looked at with greater breadth. While in the short
terms the court is applying the precedent, the precedent itself is based on a choice. So,
as is the case with Possibility (4), at best Possibility (3) is a soft form of deduction.

Precedent and Rules

Ostensibly courts use precedent31 and rules or maxims of interpretation32 when
interpreting statutory and common law rules. This creates an apparent conflict with the

31. Chapter 23 Precedent

32. Chapter 24 Rules
liv Summary

notion that policy is the only rational way to make and interpret law. The way out of
this dilemma is based on the fact that both precedent and the rules of interpretation are
really packaged policy. Viewed in this way they are not a denial of the role of policy
but an affirmation of it. The law has manufactured two devices to implement policy.
Precedent implements policy at the same time as it puts a high value on continuity and
stability as against adaptability and flexibility. Maxims of interpretation package and
present some presumptions that guide courts and save them from retreading the ground
on which earlier courts formulated these presumptions. Later courts inherit the wisdom
of earlier courts.

Secondary Sources
Secondary sources may state arguments or cast an understanding light on an issue of
interpretation. However, they can never be an authoritative source for determining the
issue.

Using Law
Law is made to be used in litigation and transactions. To explain the reasoning
processes the text will build up a model in stages – a model for structuring law, a
model for applying law to facts and a model for using law.33

Structuring Law
Structuring a legal rule by micro analysis involves identifying the parts of the rule that
comprise the elements, the consequences and the conditional statement that imposes
the consequences when the rule is applied to facts that satisfy the elements. The model
for structuring a legal rule by micro analysis can be set out in a diagram in the
following way:

Law
Element 1
Element 2
Element n
↓
Consequences
Summary Diagram 9 Model for Organising Law

Elements 1–n describe the categories of facts to which the rule applies. When the rule
does apply it brings Consequences on the parties. This bringing or causing of
Consequences is designated by the arrow in the diagram that joins Elements 1–n and
Consequences.

Applying Law to Facts

There are two key propositions:

33. Chapter 31 Model for Using Law

 Summary lv

# Each legal rule is made to apply to the types of facts designated by its elements.
There are two key propositions:
# When a rule applies to facts it imposes the consequences that are set out in the
rules.
There is a model for applying law that can explain the process of applying law to facts.
This model is an extension of the model for structuring law. It is set out in the
following diagram:

Law ← Facts
Element 1 Fact 1
Element 2 Fact 2
Element n Fact n
↓
Consequences
Summary Diagram 10 Model for Applying Law

This model is built on the proposition that elements of a legal rule apply to facts.
Consequently the model for applying law is constructed by adding two columns to the
model for structuring law with micro analysis:
1. Column 3. Column 3 contains Facts 1–n.
2. Column 2. Column 2 contains an arrow pointing from Column 3 to Column 1
demonstrating the relationship of Facts 1–n to Elements 1–n. This relationship can be
expressed in either of two ways:
2.1 Elements 1–n apply to Facts 1–n.
2.2 Facts 1–n fit within or satisfy Elements 1–n.

Applying law to facts is a deductive process based on a syllogism. This syllogism for
applying law to facts takes the following form:

Components Relationships
Major Premise Facts that fall within the categories designated by Elements 1–n
cause Consequences.
Minor Premise The material facts in this case, Facts 1–n, fall within the categories
designated by Elements 1–n.
Conclusion Facts 1–n cause Consequences.
Summary Diagram 11 Syllogism for Applying Law to Facts

Litigation and Transactions

Introduction
Using law in litigation and transactions can be analysed and explained by a model for
using law that is formed by extending the model for applying law. This extension is
needed to explain how facts are established, in litigation by proving them by evidence
and other means and in transactions by creating them by following processes. This
model for using law can be set out in a diagram:
lvi Summary

Law ← Facts ← Evidence/Processes

Element 1 Fact 1 Evidence 1/Process 1
Element 2 Fact 2 Evidence 2/Process 2
Element n Fact n Evidence n/Process n
↓
Consequences
Summary Diagram 12 Model for Using Law

Columns 1-3
Columns 1-3 reproduce the model for applying law. This is explained above.

Columns 4-5
Columns 4-5 portray two functions, which are explained below:
1. Proving facts in litigation.
2. Establishing facts in transactions.

Columns 4-5: Proving Facts

In litigation parties establish disputed facts that occurred in past time by proving them
to the satisfaction of the court according to the operative standard of proof. There are
four reasoning processes used in proving facts – induction,34 deduction,35 observation
(seeing is believing)36 and deeming provisions37. The aim is to convince the court of
the truth of facts to a degree of probability that is called the standard of proof. There
are two major standard for the positive elements of a case: the standard for a civil case
and the standard for a criminal case.

Civil Case
At common law in a civil case the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities,
which equals 51%. The policy behind this is pure abduction. To the extent that a
minimum standard of proof to a degree of 51% is required for both civil and criminal
cases the reasoning is purely abductive.38 Abductive reasoning says that one treats as
true the proposition or conclusion that is most probable. A standard of 51% is the
minimum standard for an outcome to be the most probable because, by application of
the complementarity rule, the next best possibility can be no more than 49%.

Criminal Case
At common law in a criminal case the standard of proof is proof beyond reasonable
doubt. While this is not commonly expressed as a numerical percentage it is clearly in
excess of 51% (and is in excess to a substantial extent). Obviously, though, we can
represent this and any other standard in excess of 51% as (51 + X)%. As just argued,

34. Chapter 6 Induction

35. Chapter 5 Deduction
36. Chapter 26 Observing Facts
37. Commentary 32.5.
38. Chapter 7 Abduction
 Summary lvii

to the extent that the standard is 51% it is based on abduction as is the standard of
proof in civil cases.

With the 51% explained, what about the excess of 51%, namely the X%? The
justification is found in the precautionary principle. This is a special means of coping
with uncertainty. It deals with cases where there are at least two outcomes and one
outcome yields a highly unacceptable state of affairs. In this context, the highly
unacceptable outcome is that an innocent person will be convicted. Generally jurists
have regarded the conviction of an innocent as a far greater wrong than the acquittal of
a guilty person. Here the reasoning is that a higher standard of proof makes it less
likely that an innocent man will be convicted, although more likely that some guilty
people will be acquitted.

It is possible to explain the precautionary principle in simple policy terms. It applies

when drastically negative consequences may follow or are more likely to follow if
those in control do not take proper precautions. While the precautions may seem
extravagant when viewed in isolation, they are not disproportionate when measured
against the severity of the harm that will or might ensure if the precautions are not
taken. This is expressed in the popular maxim ‘desperate times call for desperate
measures’.

Columns 4-5: Creating Facts

In transactions parties establish the relevant facts in present time by following or
carrying out the processes laid down by the rules governing the transaction. For
example the rules for the sale of land may require that the seller hand to the purchaser
a signed transfer form for the piece of land that is the subject of the sale. To create this
fact the seller prepares the transfer form in the format that the law requires, signs it and
hands it to the purchaser. The fact that parties to a transfer create the required facts in
present time by following processes causes a major consequence – it explains why
transactions are so often successful because there is commonly no uncertainty from the
need to prove past facts.

Commentary
Commentary 32.1 Footnote 1
Figure 3.3 in Chapter 3 represents this conditional statement for a legal rule in a
diagram.

Commentary 32.2 Footnote 14

In the Bible, in Exodus 5: 1-23 Pharaoh punishes the Israelites by telling his
supervisors: ‘Ye shall no more give the people straw to make brick, as heretofore: let
them go and gather straw for themselves’ (Exodus 5:7). Straw is needed to make
bricks because it causes the clay to dry more quickly so that the bricks harden sooner.
lviii Summary

Commentary 32.3 Footnote 16

The hypothetico-deductive model and the way in which it used both deduction and
induction is explained in Chapter 6 Induction. See also Chapter 5 Deduction.

Commentary 32.4 Footnote 21

Chapter 19 Choice of Values draws on the types of reasoning discussed in:
Chapters 5 Deduction Chapter 6 Induction
Chapter 7 Abduction Chapter 8 Analogy

Commentary 32.5 Footnote 37

The text Christopher Enright Proof of Facts discusses deeming provisions, along with
other means of proving facts.