## Introduction

A law essay is a formal piece of academic writing that builds a clear argument using accurate legal rules, cases, and statutory material. It differs from general essays because it demands precision, structured reasoning, and support from authority. Strong work shows a solid understanding of legal principles, careful use of terminology, and a logical flow from issue to conclusion.

For students and trainee solicitors, especially those preparing for the SQE, good technique means more than describing the law. You need to define key terms, select and explain authority, apply rules to facts, respond to counter-arguments, and reach a defensible conclusion. This guide breaks the task into practical steps, with examples and case summaries you can use straight away.

## What You'll Learn

- How to plan the question, craft a thesis, and structure using IRAC/ILAC
- How to use authority: ratio decidendi vs obiter dicta, cases vs statutes, and secondary sources
- How to analyse and apply law to facts, including counter-arguments and policy angles
- How to align your writing with SQE1 and SQE2 expectations
- Case summaries for core topics: contract damages, agreement, mistake, onerous terms, terrorism, and consent to harm
- Practical steps for research, drafting, editing, and referencing
- A concise checklist and quick reference table for revision

## Core Concepts

### Planning, Thesis, and Structure

Start with the question

- Identify the issues, parties, relevant area of law, and command words (e.g., “assess”, “evaluate”, “to what extent”).
- Define scope and any assumptions. If the question is broad, set clear limits in your introduction.

Craft a thesis

- State your main answer in one or two sentences. This is not a topic overview; it is your position.
- Signpost how you will prove it, in the order you will follow.

Choose a structure

- Use IRAC/ILAC to keep focus: Issue, Rule, Application/Analysis, Conclusion.
- One issue per paragraph or section. Start with a topic sentence that signals the point.
- Support each point with authority (cases and statutes), explain the principle, apply to the facts, and end with a mini-conclusion.

Write for clarity

- Define core terms early. Avoid jargon unless you explain it.
- Use headings and signposting to improve readability.
- Keep sentences crisp. Cut filler and repetition.

### Using Authority: Cases, Statutes, and Secondary Sources

Select the right authority

- Prefer leading cases and current statutes. Check if later cases refine or limit earlier rules.
- Use legislation where it governs the issue, then cases to interpret and apply it.

Explain ratio vs obiter

- Ratio decidendi: the binding legal principle needed to decide the case.
- Obiter dicta: persuasive comments that can guide your analysis but are not binding.

Show how the authority fits

- Give a brief fact outline only where it assists application.
- Distinguish when facts or the legal context differ.
- Draw analogies to show why a principle should apply similarly.

Cite properly and sparingly

- Use your institution’s required style (often OSCOLA). Provide pinpoint references where possible.
- Avoid long quotations. Paraphrase accurately and reserve quotes for key tests or definitions.
- Use academic commentary (e.g., textbooks and peer‑reviewed articles) to support interpretation or evaluation. Barry Nicholas’ work can inform comparative points in contract law, for example.

### Analysis and Application

Move beyond description

- Do not list cases without purpose. Each authority should push your argument forward.
- Test the scope and limits of rules: when does the principle apply, and when does it not?

Apply to facts

- Work through the legal test step by step, then resolve the toughest point. Address both sides where appropriate.
- Use short hypotheticals to show borderline outcomes or policy effects.

Use counter-arguments well

- Present the strongest objection, then answer it with authority or policy reasons.
- Keep policy reasoning grounded in sources (e.g., Mill on autonomy; Horder on criminalisation). Label policy clearly so it is not confused with black-letter law.

Conclude each issue

- Give a reasoned mini-conclusion for each point, then a final conclusion that matches your thesis.

### SQE Focus: What Markers Expect

SQE1 (Functional Legal Knowledge)

- Accuracy on rules and tests, with clear application to problem facts.
- Prioritise key authorities; avoid case lists without analysis.
- Be concise and structured to earn marks quickly.

SQE2 (Skills)

- Legal writing that is client‑friendly: clear, organised, and practical.
- Use headings, plain English, and well‑ordered reasoning.
- Where appropriate, give a short, firm view with reasons and limits (risks, alternatives, next steps).

General expectations

- Professional tone, correct case names and citations, precise use of terms like consideration, remoteness, and mitigation.
- Address ethical or policy tensions briefly if relevant, but keep the focus on law and application.

## Key Examples or Case Studies

Robinson v Harman [1848] 1 Ex 850

- Context: Damages for breach of contract.
- Key point: Expectation measure aims to put the innocent party in the position as if performance occurred.
- Use it: Start a contract damages discussion here, then test limits through remoteness and mitigation.

Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341

- Context: Remoteness of damage in contract.
- Key point: Two-limb test—loss must arise naturally or be within the parties’ contemplation at contracting.
- Use it: Apply the limbs separately. Show how special knowledge communicated at formation widens recoverable loss.

British Westinghouse Electric v Underground Electric Railways [1912] AC 673

- Context: Mitigation and betterment.
- Key point: Claimants must take reasonable steps to reduce loss; benefits arising may be set against the loss.
- Use it: After expectation and remoteness, assess mitigation and any netting-off of improvements.

Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd [1989] QB 433

- Context: Onerous or unusual terms.
- Key point: Particularly burdensome terms require clear notice before they bind.
- Use it: In formation or incorporation essays, argue about sufficiency of notice and commercial reasonableness.

Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597

- Context: Agreement and mistake.
- Key point: Objective test—what matters is how conduct would be understood by a reasonable person, not secret intentions.
- Use it: Argue consensus on an objective basis; link to “snapping up” arguments where one party knows of the other’s error.

Hartog v Colin & Shields [1939] 3 All ER 566

- Context: Unilateral mistake.
- Key point: No contract where the offeree knows of an obvious pricing mistake and “snaps up” the offer.
- Use it: Pair with Smith v Hughes to show limits of the objective test where knowledge of error is present.

Centrovincial Estates plc v Merchant Investors Assurance Co Ltd [1983] Com LR 158

- Context: Agreement and mistaken quotes.
- Key point: The objective approach may uphold apparent agreement unless the mistake should have been clear to the other party.
- Use it: Weigh reasonableness and market context when deciding if a mistake was obvious.

Terrorism Act 2000, s 1; R v Gul [2013] UKSC 64; Secretary of State for the Home Department v E [2007] UKHL 47

- Context: Definition and reach of terrorism offences and control measures.
- Key point: Statutory breadth requires careful application to facts and consideration of proportionality and purpose.
- Use it: State the statutory test first, then apply Supreme Court and House of Lords guidance to scope and limits.

R v Brown [1993] 2 All ER 75

- Context: Consent to harm in criminal law.
- Key point: Consent does not always provide a defence to offences involving actual bodily harm or worse; public policy matters.
- Use it: Discuss autonomy vs protection, using Mill and Horder for policy debate, then return to the controlling legal rule.

## Practical Applications

Plan efficiently

- Break down the question into issues and order them by importance.
- Draft a one-sentence thesis and a bullet outline before you write.
- List likely authorities beside each issue (statutes first where applicable).

Research smart

- Start with your reading list and leading textbooks to frame the debate.
- Check the latest cases in reliable databases. Note overruled or distinguished decisions.
- Keep a running citation list as you read to save time later.

Write with purpose

- Introduction: state the thesis and map the structure in two to three sentences.
- Body: use IRAC/ILAC. Define the rule precisely, then apply it to the facts.
- Show both sides briefly where reasonable, then justify your conclusion.
- Use short, relevant quotations only for definitive tests or statutory wording.
- Signpost transitions so the reader can follow your reasoning.

Use authority well

- Identify the ratio explicitly. If you rely on obiter, say so and explain why it is persuasive.
- Distinguish or analogise concisely; make the factual or legal difference explicit.
- Tie academic commentary to the point in dispute (e.g., whether fairness concerns justify stricter notice requirements post-Interfoto).

Style and referencing

- Follow your required style (often OSCOLA). Be consistent with case names, neutral citations, and pinpoints.
- Use plain English. Avoid filler words and rhetorical questions.
- Spell “judgment” (not “judgement”) in case law. Keep UK spelling elsewhere.

Close strongly

- End each issue with a mini-conclusion and the essay with a final, firm answer that mirrors the thesis.
- Do not add new arguments in the final paragraph.

Common pitfalls to avoid

- Listing cases without applying them.
- Misstating the ratio or relying on outdated law.
- Ignoring counter-arguments where they clearly arise.
- Overusing quotations or secondary sources with no analysis.
- Poor signposting, no thesis, or conclusions that do not answer the question.

SQE exam technique

- SQE1: prioritise rules and application over lengthy debate; be precise and concise.
- SQE2: structure your written advice clearly with headings, a short answer up front, reasons, risks, and next steps.
- Time management: allocate minutes per issue; leave a few minutes to review citations and conclusions.

## Summary Checklist

- Identify issues and write a clear, one-sentence thesis
- Use IRAC/ILAC and one issue per paragraph with signposting
- State rules accurately, citing statutes and leading cases
- Explain ratio vs obiter and apply the correct one
- Analyse both sides where relevant and respond to counter-arguments
- Apply to the facts step by step; avoid pure description
- Use limited, precise quotations; otherwise paraphrase and cite
- Reference consistently (e.g., OSCOLA) with pinpoints where possible
- Finish with a conclusion that answers the question and supports the thesis
- Proofread for accuracy, structure, and consistency in case names and spelling

## Quick Reference

| Topic                 | Authority/Method                         | Key point or tip                                                    |
| --------------------- | ---------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Structure             | IRAC/ILAC                                | One clear issue per paragraph; mini‑conclusion each time            |
| Using cases           | Ratio vs obiter                          | Identify the binding rule; label obiter when you rely on it         |
| Damages in contract   | Robinson v Harman [1848]                 | Start with expectation measure; then test remoteness and mitigation |
| Remoteness            | Hadley v Baxendale (1854)                | Apply both limbs; check communicated special knowledge              |
| Mitigation            | British Westinghouse [1912]              | Reasonable steps reduce loss; benefits may be set off               |
| Onerous terms         | Interfoto [1989]                         | Unusual burdens need clear pre‑contract notice                      |
| Agreement and mistake | Smith v Hughes; Hartog v Colin & Shields | Objective test; no “snapping up” of an obvious error                |
| Terrorism definition  | Terrorism Act 2000 s 1; R v Gul [2013]   | State the statutory test first, then apply appellate guidance       |
| Consent to harm       | R v Brown [1993]                         | Consent has limits in offences against the person; policy matters   |

How to Write a Law Essay: Structure, Case Analysis and SQE Tips