Answering Hypos A Basic Template

IcRAC: Issue, Conclusion, Rule, Application, Conclusion

Step 1: Pinpoint the Issues
Generally state the parties, main cause of action and its elements:
Eg. The issue presented is whether Lily can hold Walter liable in the tort of
battery. To succeed in a claiming of battery, the P must prove that there must
be an intentional and direct act by the D which causes some undesired
physical contact with the P.
Pinpoint the particular elements raised by the question (if any):
Eg. In particular, the specific issue raised by the present facts is whether the
requirements of intention and directness under the tort of battery are satisfied.
Eg. The specific issue to be addressed in this case is whether Jasper can raise
the defence of necessity/best interests of the patient.
Eg. The specific issue raised is whether detention that is initially lawful can
become tortious subsequently as false imprisonment.
Step 2: Offer your conclusion to answer the call of the question
Answer the specific issue and the main issue:
Eg. The D will be liable/will not be liable under the tort of battery because the
requirements of intention and directness are not made out.
Step 3: State succinctly what Rule you are applying to resolve each issue
Extract a current and general principle of law from the relevant cases. Cite
that current proposition of law for each of the specific issues raised and the
statute/case authority relied upon:
Eg. To succeed in a claim for false imprisonment, the defendant need not be
aware of the restraint: Murray v Ministry of Defence.
Eg. The defence of best interests of the patient is inapplicable when an adult is
of sound mind and she is entitled to refuse medical treatment, even if it would
save her life: St Georges Healthcare Trust.
Eg. The cases of Robinson v Balmain New Ferry and Herd v Weardale Steel
suggest that consent to detention once given cannot be revoked so an action in
false imprisonment would not lie.
Eg. In Wainwright v Home Office, Lord Hoffmann held that in order for the
defendant to be liable under the rule in Wilkinson v Downton, he must have
intended to cause the harm suffered by the plaintiff.
Eg. In Malcomson v Mehta, Lee JC held that harassment was a course of
conduct by a person, whether by words or action, directly or through third
parties, sufficiently repetitive in nature as would cause, and which he ought

Darius Chan

1 of 3

2008

reasonably know would cause, worry, emotional distress or annoyance to

another person.
Step 4: Application of law to facts presented in the question
Eg. Applying this rule to our facts, D is not liable in harassment because his
conduct of making a nuisance call to the police was a mere one-off incident
which does not rise to the level of sufficient repetition.
Next, draw parallels or distinguish facts of relevant cases. Say what other
facts you would need to establish liability (if any).
Eg. The conduct of the D in this case is similar to that of the case in Tuberville
v Savage. In that case, the defendant put his hand on his sword and said if it
were not assize time, I would not take such language from you. The words of
the D in the present case were I ought to slap your face for that! and like the
words used in Tuberville v Savage it negatived any intention on the part of the
D for the P to apprehend the battery.
Eg. In Re T, the court placed emphasis on the fact that the patients refusal of
blood transfusion was made under the influence of her mother and held the
hospital not liable in battery for performing the blood transfusion in an
emergency. In the present case, Ps clear intent to refuse any form of blood
transfusion under any circumstances was unequivocally stated on her card.
Unless it can be shown that the P made the decision when she was
permanently or temporarily incapacitated or that the P was influenced by
anyone, the P was entitled to refuse medical treatment and any blood
transfusion done without her consent would constitute a battery.
Next, criticise the proposition of law (if any), apply the alternative proposition
of law (if any) and state the conclusion that will be reached if another
proposition of law is applied.
Eg. Latter v Braddell is unlikely to be applied by the courts today because the
courts now recognise economic duress to be a valid vitiating factor.
Accordingly, it is submitted that P has a valid case in battery because she was
worried that she may lose her livelihood if she did not undergo the physical
examination.
Eg. Robinson v Balmain New Ferry and Herd v Weardale Steel are unlikely to
be applied in todays context since as a matter of contract law, the courts no
longer view consent as being irrevocable and generally does not permit
deprivation of liberty to enforce a debt or any contractual obligation. It is
therefore submitted that these cases would not be followed today and the P
will succeed in her claim for false imprisonment against the D.
Eg. Although the UK has since followed the majority opinion of Lord
Denning in Letang v Cooper and appears not to recognise an action in
negligent false imprisonment, the Australian courts have allowed a plaintiff to
sue in negligent false imprisonment.

Darius Chan

2 of 3

2008

If you are advising a particular client, suggest ways in which your client may
be able to succeed, eg by stating what other facts are needed to meet the
elements of the tort, by stating which proposition of law is preferable to the
clients position and explaining how you can persuade the Singapore court to
adopt that proposition of law, etc.
Eg. It is therefore difficult to hold the D liable in the tort of harassment, unless
it is shown through additional facts that the D has made not just one but many
calls and sent many letters to the P.
Eg. Despite the current English view that negligent false imprisonment may
not be a valid cause of action, it can be argued on behalf of the P that there are
cogent reasons why the Singapore court should recognise such a cause of
action.
Step 5: Restating your Conclusion
Make sure it is phrased to answer the call of the question. Tweak your answer
to match what you are asked to do and the role you are playing.

Darius Chan

3 of 3

2008