How to Use IRAC (and ILAC) in Australian Law Assignments, With Worked Examples

My first problem question was about a man who fell off a ladder, and I got it wrong. Not a little wrong. I wrote four pages of everything I knew about negligence, and my tutor's comment at the end was just: "Where is your analysis?"

already That comment changed how I study law. And the fix was a tiny framework you've probably heard of: IRAC.

The basic idea

IRAC stands for Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion. Some Australian law schools use ILAC instead, where "Law" replaces "Rule". Same thing, different label. Check your unit guide, because some lecturers care about it more than you'd expect.

In plain words: spot the question, state the law, apply it to the facts, and land on an answer. That's it. It sounds obvious until you're staring at a messy fact scenario at 11 pm with cold coffee beside you.

Let's try one together

Picture this. Sam is doing her weekly shop on a busy Saturday. She turns into the cereal aisle, and her foot goes straight out from under her. The floor was wet, and there was no warning sign anywhere. She lands hard and breaks her wrist. A few weeks later, still in a cast, she's wondering: can I actually sue the supermarket for this?

That's the kind of scenario you'll get in a problem question. Here's how I'd think it through.

Issue: The first thing to ask is, "What's the legal question here?" In Sam's case, it's whether the supermarket breached its duty of care to her. (Supermarkets clearly owe their customers a duty, so the real fight is over breach.)

Rule: Now we bring in the law. Negligence has four parts: duty, breach, causation and damage. For breach, Australian courts look at the state's Civil Liability Act. In NSW, section 5B of the Civil Liability Act 2002 asks a simple set of questions: could the risk have been foreseen, was it more than trivial, and what would a sensible person have done about it? When it comes to weighing up the precautions, the High Court’s guidance in Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40 is still the one lawyers turn to, balancing how likely and how serious the harm was against what it would have taken to prevent it.

Don't worry if that feels like a lot of law packed into a few lines. You'll get quicker at it with practice.

Application: Here's where you slow down. A wet floor in a busy shop is an obvious risk, right? Customers walk there all day. And the fix was cheap: a yellow sign, or thirty seconds with a mop. So a reasonable supermarket would probably have done something, and this one didn't. The fall likely caused the injury too.

Conclusion: The supermarket is probably liable, though it might argue Sam wasn't watching where she was going (contributory negligence).

Notice how much of that is application? That's deliberate.

What I'd tell my first-year self

Read the facts twice. The first read is for the story, the second is for highlighting anything legally interesting.

Don't be scared of "arguably" and "likely". Law isn't maths, and markers know it.

Give each issue its own mini IRAC. Two issues means two rounds, not one blurry paragraph.

And please, learn AGLC4 early. Footnotes are boring, but they're marks you can just... collect.

The trap almost everyone falls into

Writing a huge rule section and a tiny application. I did it, my friends did it, and honestly it makes sense: the rule feels safe because it's in your notes. The application feels risky because it's your thinking. But that's exactly what your marker wants to see. Aim for roughly 60% of your answer on application.

One honest note

Getting help is nothing to be embarrassed about. Tutors, study groups and feedback sessions are all there to be used. Just make sure what you hand in is genuinely your own work, and take the time to read your university’s academic integrity policy so you know exactly where the line sits.

Your first few IRAC answers will probably feel clumsy. Mine did. Keep working through past questions, ask for feedback early, and one day you’ll realise you’re doing it without even thinking.