EQUITY AND TRUSTS

Write a case analysis of Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Tan [1995] 2 AC 378. Your case analysis should include discussion of the meaning given to dishonesty.
Please do the footnotes and bibliography carefully. Especially the bibliography, please state clearly which one is book , journal articles, online resources and so on

Guidance on a case analysis
1. What was the nature of the case and what was the central legal issue?
State concisely the central legal issue(s) that arose and was to be decided. Indicate your line of argument: was this a significant decision? Does the decision create legal precedent, or uphold legal precedent? Is it safe/unsafe in legal and public policy terms? Consider which court heard the issue. Be concise.
2. What were the facts?
Identify the important, relevant facts of the case and, if appropriate, its background. In this section you are reporting, not judging or evaluating and this is not a long section. Clarify clearly the parties to the case.
3. What was the decision?
Briefly outline the decision as well as the court’s reasoning, identifying the ratio(s) of the case. Indicate whether there was dissenting judgement.
4. What is your analysis of the decision?
This is the most significant section: this is where you demonstrate your critical analysis and evaluation of the case. It is also an opportunity to demonstrate your further reading.
a) Was the court’s decision appropriate?
b) Does this decision change existing law? Was the reasoning consistent with previous similar cases? Is it likely that the decision will significantly influence existing law?
c) Did the court adequately justify its reasoning? Was its interpretation of the law appropriate? Was the reasoning logical / consistent? Did the court consider all/omit some issues and arguments? And, if there was omission, does this weaken the merit of the decision?
d) What are the policy implications of the decision? Are there alternative approaches which could lead to more appropriate public policy in this area?

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

 
ORDER THIS ESSAY HERE NOW AND GET A DISCOUNT !!!

You can place an order similar to this with us. You are assured of an authentic custom paper delivered within the given deadline besides our 24/7 customer support all through.