Abstract
It is notorious that in a common law system of adjudication, there are no categorical rules for the selection, at the appropriate level of generality, of the major premise from which there will proceed the chain of reasoning to the result. This is a significant matter, given that the result will differ if one major premise is selected rather than another. The point may be illustrated by looking back to the choice of the major premise by Dixon CJ and Williams J in their joint reasons in the Australian case of Thompson v Bankstown Corporation.1 In that case, a thirteen year old boy had sought to reach a bird's nest in a ledge in a decayed portion of a pole, erected by the respondent local government authority on a public road to carry high tension electricity wires. The boy received a severe electric shock. The Australian High Court restored a verdict in his favour which the intermediate court had set aside. The opening passage in the joint reasons reads:
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
