How to Write a UK Law Essay Using IRAC

Law problem questions are not like other university assignments. You're not being asked to discuss a topic or weigh up arguments in the abstract. You're being handed a scenario — a set of facts — and asked to advise someone. That requires a different kind of writing. Structured, methodical, and precise.

IRAC is the framework that makes that possible. It stands for Issue, Rule, Application, and Conclusion. Once you understand it properly and can apply it consistently, problem questions become a lot more manageable. Not easy — but manageable.

This guide explains each stage clearly and includes two worked examples: one in negligence, one in contract law.

What IRAC Actually Is

IRAC isn't a style guide. It's a thinking process. It forces you to identify the exact legal question at stake, state the relevant law, apply that law to the specific facts in front of you, and reach a conclusion. In that order. Every time.

Most students who struggle with problem questions aren't struggling because they don't know the law. They're struggling because they haven't learned to separate those four stages. They mix up their Issue and their Application. They state rules without applying them. They reach conclusions that don't follow from their analysis. IRAC fixes all of that — but only if you use it properly.

The Four Stages Explained

Issue

The Issue is the precise legal question your answer needs to resolve. Not a summary of the facts. Not a topic heading. A question.

Good: Is there a duty of care owed by the defendant to the claimant?

Too vague: This scenario involves negligence.

In most problem questions, there will be more than one issue. A standard scenario might contain three to five distinct legal questions, each of which needs its own IRAC block. The ability to spot all of them — what lawyers call "issue spotting" — is itself a skill that markers reward. If you miss an issue entirely, you can't gain marks for it regardless of how well you've written everything else.

Rule

The Rule is the law that governs the issue you've identified. This means the relevant cases and statutes — stated accurately and cited correctly using OSCOLA.

Be selective. Your Rule section should only contain the legal principles you're actually going to apply. Students often dump everything they know about an area of law into the Rule section without thinking about whether it's relevant to the specific facts. That doesn't impress markers — it signals a lack of analytical judgment.

If the issue is duty of care in negligence, your Rule section should set out the Caparo three-part test from Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605: foreseeability of harm, proximity of relationship, and whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty. That's the test you'll apply. Anything else only goes in if you're going to use it.

Application

This is where the marks are. The Application is where you take the rule you've stated and work through it against the specific facts of the scenario — methodically, element by element.

The most common mistake here is narrating instead of analysing. Narrating looks like this: "John was walking past the building site when a brick fell on him." That's just repeating the facts. Analysing looks like this: "The fact that John was a pedestrian walking on a public pavement adjacent to the site establishes proximity — he was in a class of persons who could clearly be affected by the defendant's operations, satisfying the second limb of Caparo."

See the difference? The analysis takes a fact, connects it to an element of the legal test, and reaches a conclusion about that element. Every factual detail in a problem scenario is there for a reason. Your job is to explain what legal significance it carries.

Conclusion

The Conclusion is a direct, brief answer to the Issue you identified at the start. It doesn't introduce new points. It doesn't restate your analysis. It simply answers the question.

Therefore, a duty of care is likely to be established on these facts.

If the facts genuinely leave room for more than one outcome, say so — but be specific about what would change the result. If the court finds that proximity was not established due to the absence of direct assumption of responsibility, no duty will arise. That's a conditional conclusion, and it's a sign of strong legal reasoning, not uncertainty.

Worked Example 1: Negligence

Scenario: Sarah is a nurse employed by a private hospital. During a routine procedure, she fails to properly secure monitoring equipment. The equipment falls and injures Marcus, a patient in the adjacent bed. Marcus suffers a broken arm and is unable to work for three months.

Issue 1: Does Sarah owe Marcus a duty of care?

Rule: A duty of care exists where the three-stage test in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 is satisfied: the harm was foreseeable, there was sufficient proximity between the parties, and it is fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty. In a clinical context, the existence of a duty is well established — Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 recognised that a person owes a duty to those closely and directly affected by their acts.

Application: Sarah, as a nurse responsible for the care and immediate environment of patients, clearly owes a duty to those within her care. Marcus was not only foreseeable as a person who might be harmed — he was in the adjacent bed, directly within the zone of risk created by Sarah's handling of the equipment. Proximity is plainly satisfied. Imposing a duty on a healthcare professional towards a patient in their care is both well-established in precedent and consistent with public policy. All three Caparo limbs are met.

Conclusion: A duty of care is established.

Issue 2: Has Sarah breached that duty?

Rule: The standard of care is that of the reasonable person in the same position — in a professional context, that of a reasonably competent member of that profession: Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582. Breach is assessed objectively.

Application: A reasonably competent nurse securing monitoring equipment during a procedure would be expected to ensure it was properly fastened before continuing. Sarah's failure to do so departs from that standard. There is no suggestion on the facts that her approach reflected any accepted body of professional practice — which would otherwise engage the Bolam defence.

Conclusion: Sarah has likely breached her duty of care.

Issue 3: Did the breach cause Marcus's loss?

Rule: Causation requires satisfaction of the "but for" test from Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] 1 QB 428: but for the defendant's breach, would the claimant have suffered the harm? Loss must also not be too remote — the type of harm must have been reasonably foreseeable: The Wagon Mound (No 1) [1961] AC 388.

Application: But for Sarah's failure to secure the equipment, it would not have fallen. The equipment falling directly caused Marcus's broken arm and consequent loss of earnings. Physical injury of this type is clearly foreseeable as a result of unsecured medical equipment. Causation is established and the loss is not too remote.

Conclusion: Marcus is likely to succeed in a claim in negligence against Sarah, and by extension, the hospital as her employer through vicarious liability.

Worked Example 2: Contract Law

Scenario: A website lists a laptop for £250. Ben emails "I accept." The seller replies that the price is actually £499 due to an error and offers to sell at that price. Ben refuses to pay £499 and demands the laptop for £250.

Issue: Was a binding contract formed between Ben and the seller at £250?

Rule: A valid contract requires offer, acceptance, consideration, and intention to create legal relations. An advertisement or price listing is generally an invitation to treat, not an offer: Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1953] 1 QB 401. An offer capable of acceptance must be a definite proposal made with the intention of being bound upon acceptance. Where a party sends an email stating "I accept" in response to a price listing, the question is whether there was a valid offer in place to accept.

Application: The website listing at £250 is an invitation to treat, not an offer. This means Ben's email — "I accept" — is not an acceptance of an offer but rather an offer by Ben to purchase at £250. The seller's reply, correcting the price to £499, is a counter-offer rather than acceptance of Ben's offer. A counter-offer destroys the original offer and replaces it with a new one: Hyde v Wrench (1840) 3 Beav 334. Ben has not accepted the counter-offer. No contract has been formed.

Conclusion: No binding contract exists between Ben and the seller. Ben cannot compel the seller to supply the laptop at £250.

Common IRAC Mistakes to Avoid

Treating the whole scenario as one issue. Most problem questions contain multiple legal questions. Identify each one and give it its own IRAC block. Running everything together into a single analysis loses marks and makes your answer hard to follow.

Stating law without applying it. Saying "the Caparo test has three stages" and then moving to your conclusion is not analysis. Walk through each element against the specific facts. Every element. Every time.

Copying the facts back without analysis. Restating the scenario tells your marker nothing about your legal reasoning. The Application stage is where you connect facts to legal tests, not where you summarise what happened.

Vague conclusions. "Therefore, there may or may not be a duty of care depending on the circumstances" is not a conclusion. Make a call. If there's genuine uncertainty, qualify it precisely: state what factual finding would change the result.

Forgetting OSCOLA. Law essays in the UK use OSCOLA referencing. Cases are cited in italics followed by the year, volume, and law report abbreviation. Statutes are cited with their full title and year. Get this right — it's part of demonstrating that you can write like a lawyer.

IRAC vs Essay Questions

One thing worth clarifying: IRAC is designed for problem questions, not discursive essay questions. If your brief asks you to "critically evaluate the development of the duty of care in English law," you're being asked for an essay with a sustained argument, not an IRAC analysis. The two formats are different, and using IRAC for a discursive essay will cost you marks.

If you're ever unsure which format your question is calling for, the command words are your guide. "Advise," "apply," and "consider the liability of" point to IRAC. "Critically evaluate," "discuss," and "analyse" point to an essay.

The Bottom Line

IRAC works because it mirrors how lawyers actually think. You identify the question, find the law, apply it to the facts, and advise the client. That's it. When students struggle with problem questions, it's almost always because one of those four stages is missing or muddled.

Practice it on past papers. Identify the issues before you do anything else. State only the rules you're going to use. Apply every element of every test to the specific facts. Reach a clear conclusion.

If you're working on a law assignment and the analysis isn't landing the way you want it to, or you're running out of time, we write law assignments that apply IRAC correctly — with proper case law, accurate OSCOLA referencing, and the kind of structured legal reasoning that gets marks.