Researching Case Law

Case law reporting formats

At the conclusion of court litigation, the judge typically provides written reasons for their decision in the form of a judgment.

The first format of this judgment is classified as an unreported judgment. This means that the written judgment has not yet been published in a law report. The second format is a law report. This means the case has been selected by editors for inclusion in a commercial publisher's law report series.

Case law lifecycle

The below flowchart illustrates the potential lifecycle of the publishing of a judgment. Starting from when the judgment is first delivered in court and published in an unreported judgment format, through to when judgments are then selected to be reported in commercial law reports.

After a case is heard in court, a judge will make a written reason for their decision on the case, in the form of a final judgment. This is known as an unreported judgment. It is possible that a judgment will always remain in this format.

In most cases, unreported judgments are then made available online (on the court website, other legal information websites or subscription databases).  

Editors of commercially published law reports review new judgments and make a decision about whether that judgment should be included in a law report series.  

There are many law report series, and the case may be published in more than one.  

In each jurisdiction, one law report series has the official approval of the judiciary. This is the authorised law report. However, not every case will be published in an authorised law report.  

This means that a case may be published in multiple formats, such as one unreported citation, several law report citations and one authorised law report citation. This is known as parallel citations.

Unreported judgments

In most cases, final judgments which are not published in a law report series, are available in unreported judgment format.

An unreported judgment on a case can be found on subscription databases (Lexis Advance or Westlaw Australia), free legal information websites (AustLII or Jade) or from the court website where the case was heard.

Note

AGLC4 rule 2.3 explains that a medium neutral citation is a standard method of citing an unreported judgment regardless of publisher or medium. The Legal Referencing – Citing Cases guide provides more information about referencing unreported judgments.

Can unreported judgments be used in assessments?

Unreported judgments can be cited in assessments if there is no alternative law report version. For example, if you wanted to write about a very recent case, and the unreported judgment is the only format available. However, if the case is subsequently reported in a law report series, you must reference that version. This is where using a case citator will assist you in tracing whether a case has been published in a law report or has been subsequently appealed to a higher court.

Law reports

Law reports were traditionally published in printed volumes containing the text of judgments of various courts and tribunals. Law reports are now available online through subscription databases.

The additional feature of law reports is that editors write summaries about the facts of the case and the principles of the law decided in the judgment. These are known as headnotes. These appear at the beginning of the case on the start page in the law report, before the written judgment supplied by the court.

Some law reports are subject specific (e.g. Australian Criminal Reports) while others deal only with cases heard in a particular court (e.g. Federal Court Reports).

When selecting a case for inclusion in a law report, the editors examine the unreported judgment against a set criteria. Most editors follow a criteria system called the Nathaniel Lindley Principles. The principles were developed by Nathaniel Lindley, QC in 1863. The principles listed below are  

1. All cases which introduce, or appear to introduce, a new principle or a new rule.
2. All cases which materially modify an existing principle or rule.
3. All cases which settle, or materially tend to settle, a question upon which the law is doubtful.
4. All cases which for any reason are peculiarly instructive.

Source: ‘The ICLR guide to reportability’ (Web Page) https://www.iclr.co.uk/knowledge/guides/the-iclr-guide-to-reportability/.

Australian Authorised Law Reports

Each Australian superior court jurisdiction has one authorised law report. These law report series have been given official approval of the judiciary. For example, the Council of Law Reporting in Victoria Act 1967 (Vic) licences the reporting of Victorian Supreme Court and Court of Appeal judgments to the Victorian Reports. The editors to the authorised law reports will send a pre-publication draft back the court for final approval. This may cause a delay in a judgment being reported in an authorised law report.

The list below states the authorised law report series for each jurisdiction in Australia. It also lists the abbreviation of that law report and a link to where that report is available on an online subscription database.

• High Court of Australia - Commonwealth Law Reports (CLR)
• Federal Court of Australia - Federal Court Reports (FCR)
• Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court - Australian Capital Territory Reports (ACTR)
• New South Wales Supreme Court - New South Wales Law Reports (NSWLR)
• Northern Territory Supreme Court - Northern Territory Law Reports (NTLR)
• Queensland Supreme Court - Queensland Reports (Qd R; QR)
• South Australian Supreme Court - South Australian State Reports (SASR)
• Tasmanian Supreme Court - Tasmanian Reports (Tas R)
• Victorian Supreme Court - Victorian Reports (VR)
• Western Australian Supreme Court - Western Australian Reports (WAR)

Other law reports

Often judgments will be reported more quickly in non-authorised reports because they do not need to go through the pre-publication court approval process.

These law reports may include judgments which are later published in authorised law reports. Where a judgment appears in both authorised and other law reports, the authorised law report version should be cited.

The list below includes some commonly used non-authorised law report series. It also lists the abbreviation of that law report and a link to where that report is available on an online subscription database.

• Australian Criminal Reports (ACR)
• Australian Industrial Law Reports (AILR)
• Australian Law Reports (ALR)
• Australian Law Journal Reports (ALJR)
• Family Law Reports (Fam LR)
• Federal Law Reports (FLR)
• Northern Territory Reports (NTR)

Parallel citations

When researching a case, there may be multiple 'parallel citations' for the judgment. This is because the judgment can go through a series of publishing stages, as shown in the flowchart above. Note: not every case will go through all these stages, some may remain permanently in unreported judgment format.  

Because cases may appear in several law report series (depending on editorial interest and the importance of the case), the most authoritative version of the case should be cited.

When parallel citations are provided in databases or textbooks, according to AGLC4 rule 2.2.7 only the most authorised citation should be used.

Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1991-1992) 175 CLR 1, 66 ALJR 408, 107 ALR 1, [1992] EOC 92-443, [1992] HCA 23

In this example, if you are referencing this case in your assessment, you would only provide the CLR citation of the case. 

Which law reports version can be used in assessments?

Cases can be reported in multiple law reports. There is a preferred version hierarchy, with authorised law reports at the top. Be sure to cite the most authoritative version.

Note

AGLC4 rule 2.2.2 contains the preferred law report version hierarchy. The Legal Referencing - Citing cases guide provides more information about referencing law report series.