Judicial Precedent Is Best Understood as a Practice of the Courts and Not as a Set of Binding Rules. as a Practice It Could Be Refined or Change by the Courts as They Wish
Judicial precedent signifies the practice whereby judges follow previously decided cases where the facts are of sufficient similarity. The doctrine of judicial precedent is a practice of the court that provides guidance to the judges when they apply case precedents. Black's Law Dictionary defines "precedent" as a "rule of law established for the first time by a court for a particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases, which helps provide certainty, consistency and clarity in the application of precedents. The rule is that judges should decide like cases in like manner.
It is a decision of the court used as a foundation for future decision making. This is known as stare decisis and by which precedents are authoritative and binding and must be followed. Doctrine of precedent or stare decisis is from the Latin phrase “stare decisis et non quieta movere”, means to stand by decisions and not disturb that which is settled. The doctrine of binding precedent based on stare decisis, means standing by previous decisions.
The only binding part of the stare decisis is the ratio decidendi in the judgment which is the legal principles and the rule of law. Other than the ratio, there may also be other comments made by the judge which is referred to as “obicter dicta”, which means, “things by the way”. They do not form part of the ratio but are used as persuasive authority which judges might take into considerations and adopt if they consider appropriate. Once a point of law has been decided in a particular case that law must be applied in all future cases that contains the same material facts. For example, in the landmark case of Donoghue V Stevenson (1932) AC 562, the House of Lords held that a manufacturer owed a duty of care to the ultimate consumer of the product. This then set a binding precedent which was followed in Grant V Knitting Mills (1936) AC 85.
In essence, judicial precedent doctrine refers to the fact that a decision of a
It is a decision of the court used as a foundation for future decision making. This is known as stare decisis and by which precedents are authoritative and binding and must be followed. Doctrine of precedent or stare decisis is from the Latin phrase “stare decisis et non quieta movere”, means to stand by decisions and not disturb that which is settled. The doctrine of binding precedent based on stare decisis, means standing by previous decisions.
The only binding part of the stare decisis is the ratio decidendi in the judgment which is the legal principles and the rule of law. Other than the ratio, there may also be other comments made by the judge which is referred to as “obicter dicta”, which means, “things by the way”. They do not form part of the ratio but are used as persuasive authority which judges might take into considerations and adopt if they consider appropriate. Once a point of law has been decided in a particular case that law must be applied in all future cases that contains the same material facts. For example, in the landmark case of Donoghue V Stevenson (1932) AC 562, the House of Lords held that a manufacturer owed a duty of care to the ultimate consumer of the product. This then set a binding precedent which was followed in Grant V Knitting Mills (1936) AC 85.
In essence, judicial precedent doctrine refers to the fact that a decision of a