You must attend a Civil Court hearing at a time convenient to your group and obtain sufficient information from the hearing and your own research to complete a written case summary (1500 words). Your group must complete a written case summary.You are required to write the case summary in IPAC format. Given you will not hear the entire case in one day it will require research on your behalf to summarise the possible outcome of the case.

You should include the following points where relevant (these are not a list of questions to be answered rather they are a list of points to consider for those of you who are not sure where to start):

1. What was the nature of the case and what was the central legal issue? Include formal particular such as:

   the name and citation of the case (eg: Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1) name of the court and judges;
   name and status of each party;
   date of the judgement;

   state concisely the essential legal issue that was to be decided; you may not get to hear the final decision as hearings often go over several days but consider whether the decision will likely create legal precedent or uphold legal precedent.

2. What were the facts? Identify the important, relevant facts of the case and, if appropriate, its background. Significant conflicting evidence should be briefly noted. Clarify clearly the parties to the case (eg: plaintiff, defendant, contractor, etc).
3. What are the legal principles to be considered? What were the arguments for the party/ies?
4. What was the decision (if you did not hear the decision answer the questions as to the likely outcome based on your research) Outline:

   the facts that were considered material or relevant;
   the ratio decidendi;
   the arguments considered by the court in support of, or against, the decision;
   any obiter dicta or significant observations by the court. Indicate whether there was any dissenting judgement. ?

5. What is your analysis of the decision? This is the most significant section of your case note. This is where you demonstrate your critical analysis and evaluation of the case:

   Was the court’s decision appropriate?
   Does this decision change/conform with existing law?
   Was the reasoning consistent with previous reasoning in similar cases?
   Did the decision, or is it likely that the decision will, significant influence existing law?
   Did the court adequately justify its reasoning?
   Was its interpretation of the law appropriate?
   Was the reasoning logical and consistent?
   Did the court consider all, or omit some, issues and arguments?
   If there was some omission, does this weaken the merit of the decision?
   What are the policy implications of the decision?
   Are there alternative approaches which could lead to more appropriate public policy in the area?

6. What do you conclude? If your finding is that the decision creates legal precedent, or conversely, upholds legal precedent, what does that means? What are the implications for the legal and public policy contexts in which this decision sits?