Preview

Doctrine of Judicial Binding Precedent

Powerful Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1908 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Doctrine of Judicial Binding Precedent
Doctrine of Judicial Binding Precedent
This question raises the issue of the role of precedent. In order to examine the statement, scrutiny of the doctrine of the judicial precedent is required.
Case law is used to describe the collection of reported decisions of the courts, and the principles which stem from them. Lord Macmillan made this observation that the case by case development is superior to those based on hypothetical models.
“.....any fixed theory and that principles always fail because they never seem to fit the case in hand, and so prefers to leave theory and principle alone.”
The doctrine of judicial binding precedent, concerns itself with the importance of case law. When cases are examined, the facts of the case are considered. More importantly, how the law applies to these facts is scrutinised. It is the latter that produces precedent, based on the maxim of stare decisis. Precedent can only operate, if the legal reasons for past decisions are known. The ‘reason for deciding’ or ratio decidendi, as a general rule is binding on all lower courts.
It is important to distinguish between the different types of precedent. Original precedent concerns a point of law that hasn’t been decided. What is derived from this is, a new precedent for future use.
Binding precedent stems from earlier case law and must be followed. Persuasive precedent is not binding, but courts may take it in to consideration when considering a particular principle.
The statement suggests that precedent does not develop different principles ‘into a coherent whole’. This is supported by the fact that the sheer volume of decided cases, increases all the time. Judgements are often long, and not necessarily ‘coherent’ in nature. This continuous nature of the judgements makes it very difficult to distinguish between the ratio decidendi and obiter dicta, as seen in Donoghue v Stephenson.
In order to avoid binding precedents, judges have sought to distinguish cases on differing facts.



Bibliography: Books Ward, Richard & Akhtar, Amanda, (2008), Walker & Walker’s English Legal System, 10th edn., (Oxford University Press). Elliot & Quinn, (2009), English Legal System, 10th edn, (Pearson Education). Martin, Jacqueline, (2007) The English Legal System,5th edn.,(Hodder Education). Elliot, Catherine, (2009) English Legal System Essential Cases and Materials, 2nd edn.,(Pearson Education). Cross, R. (1991), Precedent in English Law 4th edn., (Oxford: Clarendon Press). [ 6 ]. (1991) [ 7 ] [ 8 ]. (1898) [ 9 ] [ 14 ]. (1971) [ 15 ] [ 16 ]. (1961)

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Better Essays

    Just because there is legal precedent, however, does not mean that…

    • 1226 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    In theory the doctrine of binding precedent means that judges declare what the existing law is. However many people think that judges actually make law, especially in the High Court of Australia.…

    • 1288 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Best Essays

    Precedents are a past case that is used as an example or as guidance as it has similar facts and circumstances. There are 3 types of Precedents; Original, Binding and Persuasive. They can be used instead of statutory laws in civil cases. They are created when a new case, which has never been trialled in the UK courts. An example of this was the London bombings in 2005. The rulings for this trial will now be applied to future cases, similar to this. Judges look at a previous case, which is similar and in an equal or higher court and they will then use this information to decide…

    • 1917 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Best Essays
  • Better Essays

    MGMT 217

    • 2186 Words
    • 9 Pages

    Doctrine where the law of precedent is used in guiding decision making in present cases before the court…

    • 2186 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Precedent-a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive ruling…

    • 523 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    paralegal

    • 1529 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Precedent is prior decisions of the same court or a higher court that a judge must follow. Stare decisis “ Stand by the thing decided” Related to the concept of precedent; Rule that a court should apply the same legal principle to the same set of facts and apply it to later cases that are similar…

    • 1529 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Legal Studies VCE Unit 2

    • 342 Words
    • 2 Pages

    It develops through the doctrine of precedent where the reasons for decisions of courts are followed by future courts.…

    • 342 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    P6 P7

    • 1458 Words
    • 6 Pages

    A precedent that is not binding on the court, the judge may consider and decide that the principle that is chosen is correct so it is persuaded for it to be followed.…

    • 1458 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Best Essays

    Stare Decisis Case Summary

    • 1250 Words
    • 5 Pages

    In the interest of preserving the respect for the rule of law and cabin judicial discretion a principle of Stare decisis must be applied. This foundational principle in the U.S. legal system sets a base for favoring the adherence to precedent in order to establish a consistent and stable courtroom climate.…

    • 1250 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Best Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Business Law Quiz

    • 1491 Words
    • 6 Pages

    | Incorrect. The use of precedent--the doctrine of stare decisis --permits a predictable, relatively quick, and fair resolution of cases. Under this doctrine, a court must adhere to principles of law established by higher courts.…

    • 1491 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Superior courts do not have to follow decision made in lower courts however they may use them to help make a decision.…

    • 1161 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Legal Factors in Sport

    • 1168 Words
    • 5 Pages

    * This can become a precedent for later cases and can become binding on judges.…

    • 1168 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Precedent generally refers to some prior action that guides what is done with the action today. As the judges decisions were recorded and passed around, this lead to more continuity and predictability with verdicts in court by judges. As this took place not every case had to be heard if there was an earlier decision on the issue. They referred back to the earlier decision for the case without hearing the current case.…

    • 728 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Legal precedent recognizes the value of the past. Yet the judiciary is engaged in evaluating legal precedent as applied to contemporary cases. Inevitably, the role of common law in recognizing and altering precedent as applied to contemporary cases results in the creation of new precedents, which in turn will be evaluated in the future. Common law might be bound by general social principles in legal contexts, but it inevitably places the judiciary in the role of evaluating the continued relevance of those principles as new legal contexts emerge through civil…

    • 3787 Words
    • 16 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Judicial precedent in its broad definition is the process by which judges follow previously decided cases to aid in their decision providing that the facts are sufficiently similar. The doctrine of judicial precedent seeks to provide consistency and predictability in law by virtue of the application of the principle of stare decisis which means to stand by the decided. Through the application of this maxim, judicial precedent ensures inferior courts are bound to apply the legal principles which were set down in the decisions made by superior courts. The decision of a judge may fall into two parts, ratio decidendi and obiter dictum. The ratio decidendi is the reason for the decision and it is the principle of law on which a particular decision is made. When a judge has come to a decision he outlines the facts which he finds has been proved on evidence, he then applies the laws to those facts and arrives at his decision for which he gives a reason; this reason is the ratio decidendi. Therefore it is important to note that, it is not necessarily the decision which is of utmost importance in judicial precedence but the reason for arriving at the decision. The ratio decinidi is not as clear cut as it sounds though as there are a number of instances where the ruling judge does not explicitly say what the ratio decidendi is and it is sometimes left for a later judge to determine and this is an issue in and of itself as there maybe disagreements as to what the reason actually is. The obiter dictum on the other hand is speculation so to speak. This is where…

    • 1409 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays