Chapter 2

Legal
Analysis
&
Problem
Solving
Gather facts, analyse the facts and issues,
search and analyse the law, problem solving
technique, “bullseye”, legislative
interpretations, mechanics of precedents,
analytical of reasonings.

1 NFA_ULS1612_T21718_C3
 2 Introduction

The legal problem-solving process used in this course

requires students to: analyse the facts, frame
research questions, conduct their own legal
research, state the relevant law, apply that law
accurately to the facts, and reach a conclusion that is
justified by the analysis.

NFA_ULS1612_T21718_C3
 3 Gather facts

– The first step in analyzing a legal problem is to gather the facts, usually
from a client interview. The more familiar you are with the law that
governs the client’s problem, the more valuable the information you will
obtain at first. If you know nothing about the law that affects the problem,
you always can use the five “W’s” — who, what, when, where, why — as a
fact gathering guide. You always must identify the client objectives and
priorities as part of initial fact gathering.

NFA_ULS1612_T21718_C3
 4 Analyse the facts and issues

– Analyze the facts involves determining which facts may be legally

significant.
– At this stage, fact analysis can lead to formulating the tentative, overall
issues in the case.
– The more you know about the law that affects the problem, the more
precise your issue statement tends to be.
– This analysis also may change as you research the law and gather more
facts. No matter how tentative, however, such an analysis serves to focus
your research and fact discovery.

NFA_ULS1612_T21718_C3
 Analyse the facts and issues
5
Activity 1: Misha’s family is suing Omar for negligence due to a carr
accident that caused Misha’s death. Omar is your client.

– Fact 1: Omar was driving at 75km/h in a 60km/h zone. Omar was on duty as
a police officer in response to a report of a bank robbery. During the car
chase, Omar collided with Misha who came out from an intersection.
– Issue: Is Omar liable for negligence?

– What is the next fact that you should look for? Additional facts may
change the initial analysis.
– R v Button [2001] QCA 133

NFA_ULS1612_T21718_C3
 6 Search & analyse the law

– Must always check the law if only to confirm that the memory of it is correct.
– Given the uniqueness of each fact situation and how quickly the law
changes, every problem merits a fresh look at the governing law’s language.

– Once you have analyzed a problem’s facts and law, identified the legal issues,
and closed as many fact gaps as possible, you must formulate, evaluate and
select legal theories of the case. A legal theory may be defined as how you
conceptualize the relationship between law and facts that entitle the client
to relief.

NFA_ULS1612_T21718_C3
 7 Search & analyse the law
Activity 2: Briefly state the possible law from the fact.

– Possible law: Negligence- elements? Breach? Damages?

– Any possible of shifting burdens/liabilities? : Contributory negligence.

NFA_ULS1612_T21718_C3
 8 Problem solving technique

– Bullseye method
– To identify relevant law.

– MIRAT method
– To solve the legal problem.

NFA_ULS1612_T21718_C3
9 Bullseye & MIRAT

Clear Core

Need to “reason”

Apply new policy

NFA_ULS1612_T21718_C3
10 Bullseye & MIRAT

– The MIRAT touch

 M Material facts
 I Issues of law and policy
 R Rules and resources
 A Arguments or application
 T Tentative conclusion

NFA_ULS1612_T21718_C3
11 Bullseye & MIRAT
Activity 3: Identifying the law and solve the problem by using Bullseye method and MIRAT

MIRAT :

-Material facts?
-Issue?
-Rule?
-Application?
-Tentative conclusion?

NFA_ULS1612_T21718_C3
12 Bullseye & MIRAT

NFA_ULS1612_T21718_C3
 13 Legislative Interpretation

– Statutory interpretation is the process by which courts interpret and apply

legislation. Some amount of interpretation is often necessary when a case
involves a statute. Sometimes the words of a statute have a plain and
straightforward meaning.
– The legislative interpretation:-
– The literal rule
– The golden rule
– The purposive rule

NFA_ULS1612_T21718_C3
 14 Mechanics of Precedent

– Doctrine of stare decisis

– R v Bedingfield (1879) 14 Cox CC 341
– R Ramachandran v The Industrial Court Malaysia [1971] 1 MLJ 145
– Ratio decidendi
– Obiter dicta
– Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1956] 1 All
ER 256

NFA_ULS1612_T21718_C3
 15 Types of Reasoning

– Analytical reasoning
– Deductive reasoning
– Inductive reasoning
– Reasoning by analogy

NFA_ULS1612_T21718_C3