Build a Case Record Before You Write the Case Note

A case note can become unreliable before its first sentence is written. The researcher finds a familiar case name in a database, reads a short abstract, and begins to state a rule. The name can refer to several decisions. The abstract can omit the procedural question. The document can apply a different version of an instrument. A later court can change the practical result.

Build a case record first. The record is a structured identification sheet, not a conclusion.

Identify the exact document

Copy the case name from the document or official record. Add every available case number, docket number, institution reference, issuing body, country or legal system, document type, date, and language. Record the official source URL and the date accessed.

Do not merge documents that share a case name. A jurisdiction decision, merits award, correction, set-aside judgment, and enforcement judgment must have separate records. Connect them through a procedural-history field.

The UNCITRAL Case Law on UNCITRAL Texts system provides case information and CLOUT abstracts concerning UNCITRAL texts. UNCITRAL states that a link to the full decision in the original language is included where available. Use the abstract to locate and frame a source, then state whether the full decision was available and reviewed.

Name the deciding body and its task

Record whether the document came from an arbitral tribunal, national court, ad hoc committee, institutional body, or another authority. State what that body was asked to decide at that stage. “Arbitration case” is too broad to describe a court’s review of an award or a tribunal’s decision on jurisdiction.

Add the requested relief and disposition in neutral terms. Separate the fact that an application was made from the fact that it succeeded.

Attach the legal and procedural instruments

List each instrument that matters to the specific point: arbitration agreement, treaty, convention, national statute, model-law enactment, institutional rule, or procedural order. Record the relevant version and provision. When a decision quotes the instrument, compare the quotation with the official text if possible.

Do not assume that two jurisdictions adopted identical model-law text or that a current rule version governed an older proceeding.

Label each source layer

Mark the full decision, official abstract, official case entry, translation, unofficial summary, commentary, and later citator result as different layers. Record which layer supports each proposition. A translated abstract can support discovery and a limited description, but it does not silently become the full reasoning in the original judgment.

End with later history and limits

Search for corrections, interpretations, annulment or set-aside proceedings, enforcement proceedings, appeals, and later official treatment. Record the sources checked and the date. State missing documents and language limits.

The record is ready when another researcher can locate the exact document, understand why it exists, identify the text it applies, and see what evidence remains incomplete. Only then should synthesis begin.