Judgments are not expected to meet a standard of perfection. Rather, they must adequately identify and resolve the issues. They must do so by applying the relevant law to the facts as found. Putting effort into identifying the issues is the key to crafting a good judgment, whether it be written or oral.

Reasons for decision that misconceive or overlook an issue or deal with lots of information without any real indication of its relevance for deciding the issues will be unduly long; they will lack structure, focus and direction; they will be difficult to follow; and they will not be convincing. For those reasons, it makes sense to use the issues to structure your judgment.

Some judgments use a form of shopping list or standard headings to order the reasons. Those headings might be something like "the pleadings", "the evidence", "the submissions" and "the law". They might be followed by a heading such as "consideration" or '"my reasoning". A judgment that is crafted in that way will tend to be a report of much of what has happened in the case rather than being focused on identifying and resolving the issues. It is also, I would venture to suggest, an approach that is at risk of losing its way. If indeed the judgment is guided throughout by a view that has been formed as to the issues that will decide the outcome (as it ought to be), then why not state those issues up front so that writer and reader alike can see how those issues have been identified and the way they are being resolved?

How then to begin the judgment? Many judgments begin by explaining the nature of the legal process that is being considered, whether it be an interlocutory application, a writ, a corporation's summons, a complaint, an application for review or an appeal. A beginning of that kind might also use procedural descriptions like plaintiff, respondent, claimant or intervenor. However, what is actually before the Court is not the form of application, but an underlying controversy or dispute that involves individuals and events that took place at a particular time and place. It is the resolution of that controversy or dispute that the judgment will be about.

Therefore, I suggest that there is much to be said for trying to begin with a description of what the case is about in a few sentences, using the names of the parties and the facts of the case. Begin by describing the heart of the dispute. Then, in the next few paragraphs, give further details that are just enough to be able to identify the issues to be resolved. This approach will orient the reader and explain at the outset what the reasons are about and what the questions are that need to be answered in order to reach a result in the case. It will focus on all that is to follow and make sure the reasons fulfil their purpose.

It will also mean that the competing contentions of the parties as to the factual findings that should be made and the law to be applied to those facts can be dealt with when you address the relevant issue. It will mean that your reasons are less repetitive, are very focused on what is needed to decide the case and clearly express the reasons for the result. Approaching a judgment using the issues is also less likely to result in you missing something significant because the essence of the dispute will be in view throughout and the sequence of questions will show the overall reasoning pathway.

Next, I will explain something about how the issues might be expressed. It is possible to outline a series of issues as topics such as, "the contract", "interpretation of relevant terms", "breach", "causation", "damages" and "other relief". However, I suggest that the judgment will be more effective in fulfilling its purpose if the issues are stated as questions to be decided or as propositions that must be established by the party with the relevant onus.

That way, your attention will be directed to considering exactly what the issues are that need to be answered and the logical sequence in which they need to be resolved. It will also help you work out which parts of the evidence and submissions matter most and which issue they relate to.

I suggest that it is also helpful to try and express the issues using the names of the parties and other contextual details. This makes the analysis less abstract and will expose more clearly what needs to be decided.

The next point is perhaps more contentious. I suggest that it is very important that the decision-maker formulate their own list of issues rather than simply adopt what the parties say. Obviously, there will need to be regard to the way each party has presented its case. However, at the end of the day, it is your judgment and your reasons. The identification of the real issues in dispute is the key to that process. Formulating the issues is as much a part of your reasoning as determining them.

If, at the end of your reasons, there remains a significant aspect of the case raised by one of the parties that has not been addressed, then you can then deal with that briefly.

Finally, the adoption of an issues-based approach to judgment writing will focus the way you conduct the hearing. If you know your judgment is going to use an issues-based structure then, throughout the proceedings, you can direct your attention to identifying the issues. If you work on a list of the issues during the hearing, then that can provide a good structure for an ex tempore decision. It can also be used to identify matters that are not really in issue or are not important. It will help you ask relevant questions. It will also enable you to see whether the answer to a particular issue is a matter of common ground or a matter about which a concession may be made by the end of the hearing.

This I have already addressed. If you carefully identify the issues you need to decide, you are more likely to confine your reasons to what is needed to decide those issues. You would also be dealing with the law and the facts at the point where they affect the outcome of the case. Your findings and why you have made them will be clearer and it will also be easy to see the overall pathway to the outcome. Case-specific headings are generally better at this than topic headings or templates.

At the start of your reasons, try and explain the essence of the dispute between the parties using as few words as you can. Do not be abstract or unduly focused on fine distinctions. Avoid defined terms. Do not get drawn into the arguments. Instead, identify the parties, the broad nature of their claims and what is at stake. Do not go into any extra detail. Provide just enough of an explanation as is needed to be able to list the issues to be decided. Everything else can be addressed when you come to dealing with the issues themselves.

Avoid simply recounting what happened in the case. The reasons are not a summary of what happened in the hearing. Recounting the pleadings, the evidence and the submissions will not expose your reasoning. These things make the reasons much longer than they need to be.

This is especially true of submissions. It is not necessary to recite them. Rather, it is necessary to deal with the main points that are raised by them. For the most part, the reasons you give when dealing with an issue will cover the significant points of any submissions relevant to that issue. This will be so because, as explained above, your application of the law to the facts of the case must engage with what has been argued by the parties. If there are any significant contentions that remain then, as I have said, they can be addressed at the end of the reasons (or, if they do not subtract unduly from the logical flow of the reasons, at the end of the section dealing with the relevant issue).

This reversing of the usual order for referring to submissions will make your reasons shorter and clearer. Your analysis will be at the centre. You will avoid the duplication that comes with summarising the submissions before proceeding to consider them. Your obligation is to address the main points raised, not to give a summary of confused or unfocused arguments that roam far and wide.

Whenever you can, deal with the evidence by making intermediate findings. Again, your task is to make findings, not to record evidence. To give a simple example, rather than quote from a series of documents, you might say something like, "The parties exchanged a number of emails over the next few months. Mr Ibrahim made no complaint in those emails about the work being done by Ms Leong". If there is a conflict in testimony go straight to the task of explaining why one account is to be accepted over the other. Try to avoid simply reciting large parts of the evidence that was given.⁷

Lawyers love a good detail. Of course, it is important to be precise. However, the inclusion of lots of specific information can create a faux sense of mastery. Often the detail given in reasons is of no moment at all. I am referring to things like precise dates, places and amounts of money, as well as historical details about individuals and companies. For example, an individual's employment history and qualifications or the incorporation date and number of shares on issue of a company.

Redundant precision is very distracting for the reader and decision-maker alike. It leads the reader to think that every detail is significant and ought to be remembered when many matters of detail do not matter at all. It gives the decision-maker a false sense of command by focusing on matters that are insignificant to the reasoning process. It fills the reasons up with unnecessary detail that will have to be closely checked in editing. Of course, sometimes certain details are significant to your reasons and necessary to include. But try and avoid detail that does not affect your decision.

It is not uncommon to see a series of paragraphs each starting on such and such a date and then specifying an event. I know. I have done it myself. These days, I am mostly reformed. Instead, I have started to write in a way that emphasises the narrative by saying things like, "the next day" or "a week later", or simply, "after that" or, for emphasis, "almost two years later". Or, "it took Ms Lander six weeks to respond". Or, "for the next three months, there were no lost work days". This adds clarity. It tells the story by exposing what is significant about the sequence of events to how the case is determined. It relieves the reader of the burden of having to calculate the intervals between dates. It allows for language that exposes the significance of the spaces in the chronology.

A short overview before a detailed part of your reasoning provides clarity as to the purpose of what follows. It gives a roadmap to guide the reader. It aids in understanding the significance of the points being made for the overall reasoning. Otherwise, the reasoning can have a kind of "shaggy dog" quality where it is unclear where it is going. A good overview will also help you keep in mind the purpose of the long passage of reasoning and so keep you on track as you write.

All readers like signposts. They give context for what is coming next. One common problem that often produces undue length in reasons is the idea that you need to refer to a particular aspect in some detail so you can explain the issues. Foreshadowing is a good method to adopt to limit what you say at the beginning to only what is needed to describe the issue itself. It avoids going into too much detail at the stage when you are explaining what the case is about. Further relevant details can be addressed later in your analysis where it is necessary to include them. For example, when first identifying a key meeting, you might simply say, "the events at the meeting are contentious". The contentious points about the meeting can then be dealt with as part of your analysis addressing the relevant issue.

Or, you might say, "the meaning of the damages clause is in dispute". You can then address the alternatives later.

Do not try to say too much at the beginning. Save your words for when you address the issues.

Most of the time, reasons are concerned with explaining how the law applies to the facts, or why certain facts have significance because they mean that a particular legal principle applies. Of course, the reasons need to be clear as to the legal principles you are applying. However, often that is best done by simply listing your understanding of the state of the law followed by the main authorities from which they have been derived. Long quotations and descriptive engagement with the law is usually not required.

It appears to be fashionable to quote statutory provisions extensively. Sometimes, dealing with an issue of statutory construction requires regard to the detail of many provisions. However, often what is required is the identification of a source of statutory power or authority. In such cases, it is usually better to paraphrase so as to provide the clarity that comes from everyday expression. This will also better expose your view as to the nature of the power you are exercising.

In other cases, what is required is a consideration of the statutory context. If that is the case, it is better to try and tell the story of what the provisions are dealing with and the way they interrelate. An explanation of the logic of the statute will emerge much more clearly from an approach of that kind compared to quoting large passages. If long provisions are quoted, then try to follow each large quote with some form of short explanation or summary of the provisions. This will enable the reader to jump over the quotes (which readers tend to do anyway) and come back to the precise terms of the legislation if necessary. It will also force you to be clear in your own mind as to what the legislation is doing as a whole.

Also, if you put section references at the end of sentences rather than at the beginning, then the reader will not be distracted by the need to absorb a complex system of numbering. Starting with the provisions themselves will put the focus on what the provisions are addressing and make it easier to explain (and follow) how they work together.