Consider How The Doctrine Of Binding Precedent Operates In...

Consider How the Doctrine of Binding Precedent Operates in...
The doctrine of binding precedent, or stare decisis is the heart of the English Legal System. It refers
to the fact that within the hierarchical structure of the English courts, a decision of a higher court
will be binding on a lower court.
The House of Lords or the Supreme Court stands at the peak of the English court structure and its
decisions are binding on all lower courts. And it should always have to bear in mind, that, as the UK
is a member of the EC, and as the ECJ is the highest court, it is not bound by any higher court, the
decisions of the ECJ is binding on the House of Lords and all the lower courts. The ECJ is not
bound to follow its own previous decision. Also as a consequence of the HRA 1998 the decision of
the ECtHR are ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
If a judge decides, for some reason that the facts in the case before him are so different from those of
a previous similar case, he is at liberty to ignore the precedent and treat the case differently. He can
decide the case as he thinks fit.
Scope for further uncertainty is introduced by the necessary distinction between ratio decidendi and
obiter dicta .Only the important part of judgment that are binding on future courts are the ratio
decidendi. Anything else, i.e. the statements of principles of law that are not relevant to the decision
are obiter dicta. Difficulty arises from the fact that judges do not label their judgments in this way.
They do not actually separate and highlight the ratio of the case and their judgments may be of great
length, or there may be many judges delivering individual judgments on the same case. So it is very
difficult to determine the particular ratio of any case. The problem of binding precedent is that it is
open to later judges to avoid precedents by declaring them to be no more than obiter statements.
There are numerous advantages and disadvantages of the doctrine of stare decisis. Amongst these
are the following:
Advantages:
(a) It is a time–saving device, as for most situations there is an existing solution.
(b) It creates certainty in the law and allows lawyers to advice clients on the probable outcome of a
case.
(c) It provides an
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Judicial Precedent Essay
Case law comes from the decisions by judges, but juries are not making the decision of case law.
Otherwise, case law is collection of written decisions, which is covered and used in precedent for
legal cases. Also, case was noted legal reason and argument . Law of case described in judicial
precedent. Judicial precedent is source of law, which is based on the latin maxis. The latin maxim is
"stare decisis et non quieta movere", it means that stand by what has been decided and do not
unsettle the established . Furthermore, in this essay will analyse the Judicial precedent and it has two
meaning. First is process of judges who follow previously decided case. Next meaning is decided
the law itself, which is precedent may expected on the future . Judicial precedent also divided into
original precedent, binding precedents and persuasive precedents. In addition, in this essay, will
analyse the judicial precedent, binding of judicial precedent, ratio decidendi, obiter dicta, advantage
and disadvantage of this.
In brief history, until the thirteenth century the United Kingdom has a few statute of great useful and
after that time, statute were changed into large confined matters to of Public law. At following the
thirteenth century, when statute of law stayed important, the United Kingdom used language and
which had acquired a precise meaning in judge made law. The court explained legal meaning of
statute. Also, rule as to the interpretation of statute developed by the court . Legal

Difference Between English Civil Law And Common Law
English Common Law
English Common Law and Civil Law are very much a different way that countries apply the law.
One of the main differences being that the Common law is largely based on precedent which means
that that the decision that a judge needs to make was most likely already made in the similar case.
Because Common law uses case law as their reference for future cases, judges have a huge role in
making the Common Law to what it is today and what it will be like in the future. Precedents are
kept up to date through the years and are historically documented in collections of case law. The
verdict in cases that follow the common law is decided by the jury which is a group of normal
people that have no legal background that listens to ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
If the there are no significant facts that are completely different the judge would be forced to use the
precedent set by earlier case.
To show how distinguishing works there are two cases that are commonly used. These common
cases are Merritt v Merritt (1970) and Balfour v Balfour (1919) . In both of the cases, the defendant
is the husband and the prosecutor is the wife and both claims are for a breach of contract.
In Balfour v Balfour the husband went away from the country to, but the wife was not able to go
with him. The husband orally agreed to send money to the wife while he was away working. When
the relationship ended so did the payments from the husband. The wife went to court to get the
contract enforced in court, but he claims failed because it was decided that there was no intention to
create legal relations. The agreement was looked as a domestic arrangement made between husband
and wife and not a legal one.
In Merritt v Merritt the court was able to distinguish that there was a defence in the marital status of
the people compared to the Balfour v Balfour case. It was aggreged that the husband would give
money to the wife for her to pay the mortgage and when it fully paid off the house would be
changed to only have the wife's name and no longer joint ownership. The claim succeeded, even
though this agreement was written down and signed by both parties, the husband rejected to

The doctrine of judicial precedent is at the heart of the Common Law system of rights and duties.
Judicial precedent is concerned with the major of case law in the common law system, it had been
described as the legal experience from lawyer's term. The term of 'precedent' there is an implication
that what was done before should be done again and which mean a good guide to follow and trying
to solve a problem is to see what examples exist where this or similar problems have been tackled
before.
If a case then had decided point of law it will be logical that kind of explanation will look in the
future. Therefore the law does not have essentially differently.
The doctrine of judicial precedent is based on the principle of stare decisis, ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
And it is given by the judge at the end of a case as the explanation of his/her decision. On the
contrary, judge supplemented the expression in the decision the opinion is other matters said that
and judge cannot follow it from now on, it in the non–material's fact including judge the idea
process, in the legal condition's general observation, the literary embellishment reference, case's
judge impossible to be forced to accept afterward it, when was correct, but it might be highly
persuasive. And the lower courts any way do not follow the Obiter Dictum.
To some degree legal theorists argue about the purpose on the doctrine of judicial precedent.
Adherence to precedent helps achieve two objects of the legal order. Firstly it contributes to the
maintenance of a regime of stable laws. This stability gives predictability to the law and affords a
degree of security for individual rights. Secondly it ensures that the law develops only in accordance
with the changing perceptions of the community and therefore more accurately reflects the morals
and expectations of the community. And have good reasons that decision the judge–made properly
in detail.
By contrast, precedent is accumulates over a long period of time by the time, therefore, it may not
applicable to modern society, and the law is not kept up with the pace of the change in society.
Meanwhile, it would be accumulated too many

Essay on Judicial Precedent
Judicial Precedent
Setting a precedent is providing an example for others to follow. Legal precedent is however slightly
more complicated. It is the term given to a previous decision, a particular stance or view, judge's
Statement, or the effect of certain fact(s) present within a past case; which dictates or influences the
adjudication or verdict of a later case. Or put simply 'a reason for deciding a particular issue as
established by a judge in a previous case'.
Judicial Precedent is separated into the three Latin named sectors which define a judgement:–
Stare Decisis, (the literal interpretation 'let the decision stand'). This is the
verdict of the case, upon which sentencing occurs ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
There are two types of Obiter dictum:
* A statement of law based upon facts which were either not found to exist or if found, were not
found to be material. As in Rondel V Worsley (1969) where the judge expressed hypothetical
opinions on Barrister's liability in tort and a Solicitor's immunity from this liability when acting as
an advocate. Where the case actually concerned a Barristers liability for damages for negligence,
when acting as an advocate.
* A statement of law although based on facts found, which does not contribute to the ratio of the
case. These are often dissenting judgements, made by Judges who do not agree with the majority
decision in a Court of Appeal or House of Lords case.
Theoretically there are two types of Judicial precedent:– Persuasive and Binding.
Persuasive precedent does not legally have to be followed, because they do not directly affect the
verdict of a case. There are considered three main types of Persuasive precedent.
1. Obiter Dictum always form persuasive precedent, as they are not the reason for a verdict but the
judges viewpoint on what would be the adjudication for and what can be ascertained as appropriate
practice for, similar cases.

2. The decisions made in Scottish, Irish, Commonwealth and foreign courts are also a form of
persuasive precedent and especially in rare

Doctrine Of Precedent In The Australian Justice System
1. Introduction
This report includes Doctrine of Precedent and what it represents in the justice system. And how the
Doctrine of Precedent fits within the Australian justice system and what it represents. Also the
relations ship of common law and statue law and the briefing of it. Finally, positive and genitive
aspects of Doctrine of Precedent.
What is law?
The law has been described as "the cement of the society and an essential medium of change". .
(Trevor Atherton and Trudie Atherton (2011, p.10)
The Doctrine of Precedent
The doctrine of precedent or on the other hand gaze decisis is depicted as "the way toward
separating the significant guidelines from a past case and applying it in a later question." The
possibility of tenet of ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
These laws are produced in view of decisions that have been given in more established court cases.
Normal laws are otherwise called case law or point of reference. These tenets can be composed and
additionally unwritten. In a customary law equity framework, the laws of a nation rely upon the
decisions or choices of courts or different councils, where it is trusted equity won. The general main
of this framework is that comparable cases with comparable actualities and issues ought not be dealt
with in an unexpected way. On the off chance that there is a debate between laws, the expert or point
of reference looks to past cases and should give a similar thinking and choice that was given in the
principal case. The laws can likewise be adjusted and advanced in light of the conditions. The
judges additionally have the specialist to make new laws. Numerous nations live in precedent–based
law frameworks or blended

Stare Decisis And Judicial Precedent
Stare decisis and Judicial Precedent
In the course of deciding cases, judges create legal rules. This generates a precedent, contained in
law reports that may be relied on in the future. The procedure by which judges follow decisions of
previous cases is regarded as the doctrine of judicial precedent. This doctrine, is based on the Latin
principle of stare decisis, "stand by what has already being decided" , stating that previously decided
cases of higher courts generate a binding precedent over lower courts. The doctrine of precedent
operates within the case law of the English legal system following the Court Hierarchy. As for
judges are expected to treat sufficiently similar cases, in law and fact, in the same way, following the
same ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This decision provided the foundation of the modern law of negligence and set a binding precedent
then followed by cases such as Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police decided by the
Court of Appeal. Binding precedent, a precedent that must be followed, is constituted by decisions
on legal principles, which within a judgement is regarded as the ratio decidendi. The obiter dicta,
"things said by the way", constitutes the other part of a judgement, is mainly based on questions of
fact and therefore do not create a binding but a persuasive precedent, which judges can refer to but
are not required to do so. The case of R V Howe & Bannister stated that "duress" is not an available
defence in murder. The obiter dicta of this case was followed in R V Gotts (1992) 2 AC 412 , which
held that such defence was equally not available for the offence of attempted murder .
Case law is based on authoritative premises that leaded to the creation of a court structure founded
in hierarchical principles. Therefore, the feature that determines the judicial practice of the doctrine
of precedence is the authoritarian nature of the court hierarchy , principle that established that higher
courts on the system have more authority than the inferior courts, being self–imposing and should be
considered as commanding over lower courts, as for it provides a better interpretation and
understanding of the law. Accordingly, First

The Role Of The Doctrine Of Precedent
The purpose of this essay focus on the important role of the doctrine of precedent in Australia legal
system. The doctrine of precedent, in a simple words, is the principle that binds the common law
together. As a general rule it means the courts were bound to follow the decisions of all courts
superior to it in its own court hierarchy. This paper is divided into four parts. The first part mentions
a background of the topic, the second part concentrates on analyzing the principle as well as the
advantages and disadvantages of the doctrine of precedent. Finally the conclusion sums up the
outcome of the research.
The doctrine of precedent, as mentioned, was settled in the nineteenth century. Before that,
precedents were considered to be ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The diagram above show the Australia Court hierarchy. The diagram is also demonstrate how the
concept of Doctrine of Precedent applies.
A further question that arise is when the High Court of Australia and the Supreme Court of Victoria
will depart from their previous decisions. First of all, the High Court of Australia will normally
follow its own earlier decisions and will depart from them if there is a strong reason to do so. In the
case in which the High Court did not follow its own previous decision, it said that: "while stare
decisis is a sound policy because it promotes predictability of judicial decision and facilitates the
giving of advice, it should not always trump the need for desirable change in the law especially we
would add if the change is necessary to maintain a better connection with more fundamental
doctrines and principle". For example, in the case of Imbree v McNeilly (2008) 249 ALR 647 7, the
decision of the previous case named Cook v Cook (1986) 162 CLR 376 8 was no longer a good law
to be follow therefore the court decided to overruled this previous case.
Conversely, a court of appeal will normally follow its own previous decision and the situations that
it determines not to do so will be rare. For instant, the Victorian Court of Appeal only depart from its
own previous decision where it is convinced that the decision is "clearly, or plainly, wrong' 9. In the
case of

The Ethics Of Our Privacy Protection Laws
Courses of action available to your case
As you could see in the above reflection of our privacy protection laws, currently, we do not have a
direct cause of action for breach of privacy. However, I will explain other torts that may be available
in court against the possible unlawful surveillance of you and your family.
Option 1: Breach of Confidence
This is an equitable cause of action that protects against the improper disclosure of private
information. In Australia, the law is not settled yet to whether this action also covers for intrusions
upon private life without an actual disclosure of information. However, the recent High Court
observations in the Lenah's case may support a claim similar to yours. In order to successfully claim
breach of confidence, we will need to establish the following;
The information, or the circumstances leading to obtaining it, have a confidential nature, and
The information has been obtained in circumstances of confidence, and
There must be an actual or threatened disclosure of this information.
Are the circumstances of your case confidential?
It may be possible to persuade the court that the circumstances of your case have a confidential
nature as they involved the privacy of your own home. Relevantly, the High Court observed in
Lenah that information obtained from a private activity should be treated as confidential, and
exemplified that photographing another without authority and during a private act is as faulty as

Before The Norman Conquest, The Administration Of Justice
Before the Norman conquest, the administration of Justice was integrally given to local courts
accordingly to local customs. There was no idea of centralisation. The situation changed when
William the Conqueror gained the throne in 1066, because he set up the Curia Regis based in
Westminster with judges approved by the King. In 1156, 'itinerant Royal justices' was created, so
that judges appointed by the King can dispense justice in his name in the whole country. The King
didn't abolish the former system, but created another one. People could choose the system they
would be judged by. There was a preference for the royal court. These itinerant judges gradually
elaborated a common uniform jurisprudence in the whole England. Common ... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
Parliament is sovereign, therefore the law it makes prevail on any other source.
We will focus the working of statutory interpretation (A), then look if it's regulated by the law (B)
and scrutinized rules of interpretation (C).
A) The operation of statutory interpretation
Statutory interpretation deals with Statute law. Indeed an interpretation may be required when there
is an ambiguity or if there is an error made by Parliament. Rolle of judges is to ascertain the
intention of Parliament. The intention of Parliament is a delicate concept for representing the
majority option of Member of Parliament how is representative for the United Kingdom citizens.
For all Parliament is the legislator, Courts must apply legislation through the discretion of judges.
However lawyers and barristers may also interpret the statutes to convince the judges.
Courts have several roles. There is a dichotomy between statuary interpretation and statutory
construction. The first one is « the provision of meaning to the words in a statute by a court » and
the second one is « the resolution of ambiguities or uncertainties in a statue ».
B) Is statutory interpretation binding of any kind of rule of law ?
Statutory interpretation is mandatory for judges, only the way of interpretation is not mandatory.
Parliament has given the courts some sources of guidance on statutory interpretation.
The interpretation Act 1978 provides certain standard definitions of

Administrative Tribunals And Decision From Other Common...
4. Administrative tribunals and decision from other common law countries
Beside the judicial functions of courts, administrative tribunals are another official bodies that
adhere the rights to settle the disputes, and they are established within federal and state jurisdictions.
The well–established practice of the doctrine of precedent is also found in the operation of
administrative tribunals, where the inferior tribunals follow decisions of superior but those decisions
are not necessary carry the formal precedential authority. In most cases, disputes parties in the
tribunals could appeal to the court, where the tribunals are bound by the precedent of the court.
The decisions from other common law jurisdiction such as United Kingdom, New Zealand,
Canadian and United States have no authority on Australian courts but Australian judges rather
relied on them as an argument in the judgment particular when confront with the absence of binding
authority. Traditionally, the decision of superior English courts are paid the highest regards,
especially when there is a conflicting of foreign court decisions, and are frequently cited by
Australian judges owing to the fact that British is the mother nation of Australia.
E. Ratio decisis and Obiter dicta
According to doctrine of stare decisis, not all statements of rule of law in the precedent are binding.
The ration that leads to judgement and has the legal binding force is call ratio decisis, while the
supporting ration to that

Essay on Detailed Revision Notes on British Judicial...
Judicial Precedent.
Introduction.
§ Judicial precedent means the use of decisions made by judges in the past as a source of law,
where a similar case arises the past decision is used as a guideline.
§ It is also known as case law.
§ It is a major source of law both today and historically.
§ If law on a particular source of law is not found in legislation – law will be found through
common law reasoning.
§ That is to say that if no Act of parliament or Dl to follow then judges look at the past
decision of a similar case to find a solution to the case before them
§ The hierarchy of the courts is also important to know as the lower courts must follow the
past decisions of the higher courts– ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
§ That is to say that the original decision had not been over– ruled ( no longer good law.)
3. Persuasive precedent.
§ Precedent that does not have to be followed
§ BUT carries great weight
§ For example obita Dicta Statements– if the situation was to be different treated with
respect– High trees case.
§ Decisions of Judicial committee of the privy council.
§ Decisions of the lower courts
§ A dissenting judgement.

<strong>*</strong>* The courts in England and Wales operate a rigid doctrine of JP, where each
court is bound to follow any decision made by a court abov it in the heirachy,
European Court of Justice.
§ Highest court affecting UK `s legal system.,
§ Only concerned with matters of European law.
§ Any decision are binding on all courts in the Uk.
§ However national law is not affected by Eu law.
§ This court can overrule its own past decisions.
§ Overall the ECJ has a flexible approach to past precedents.– this is contrasting to Uk which
will be highlighted who operate a rigid approach.
The House of Lords.
§ Highest court in the UK.
§ Binds all other courts in the ELS.
§ Has appellate jurisdiction – both civil and criminal cases heard there.
§ It only hears 60 – 70 cases each year so does not have much opportunity to change the law.
§ Originally the House of Lords had the right to overrule past decisions but

‘Write a Short Essay Critically and Concisely Discussing...
'Write a short essay critically and concisely discussing the binding sources of law in modern
Ireland.'
Binding sources of law in Irish law are the sources created by the binding authorities, that is to say
the rules which must be followed in adjudication. Adjudication is the fact that the judicial decision is
binding on the parties involved in a case. Binding authorities must be distinguished from persuasive
authorities. Sources coming from persuasive authorities can eventually be followed in certain
circumstances. There is a hierarchy in the sources of Irish law. Thus, the sources that are going to be
studied in this essay are European law, the Irish Constitution, International law, the Legislation and
Case law. Ireland joined the ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
By a legislative act, Irish courts are allowed to use this jurisprudence in Irish law. So the European
law is superior to the Irish Constitution, International law, Irish legislation and Irish case law. The
second most important and binding source of law in Irish law is the Irish Constitution. The
Constitution of Ireland is the basic law of the State. It was adopted by plebiscite in 1937. It is the
successor of the Constitution of Dáil Éireann (1919) and the Constitution of the Irish Free State
(1922). The Constitution states that all legislative, executive and judicial powers of Government
derive from the people. It sets out the form of government and defines the powers of the President,
the two Houses of the Oireachtas and the Government. It also defines the structure and powers of
the courts, sets out the fundamental rights of citizens and contains a number of directive principles
of social policy for the general guidance of the Oireachtas. The Constitution may be amended only
by referendum. In operation since 1937, it sets general principles about the Irish state. For instance it
sets the principle of the separation of powers. It also establishes the judiciary system. As well as this
it creates a parliamentary democracy based on the British parliamentary system. Moreover it
establishes fundamental principles and rights concerning its relation with its citizens, and with other
sovereign states. For instance

Certainty and Flexibility in Judicial Precedent
It is often believed that the relationship between certainty and flexibility in judicial precedent has
struck a fine line between being necessary and being precarious. The problem is that these two
concepts of judicial precedent are seen as working against each other and not in tandem. There is
proof, however, that as contrasting as they are on the surface they are actually working together to
achieve one common goal.
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 ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Obiter dictums are not binding as they do not speak directly to the matter before the court, they do
however still prove useful in legal practice as they can be used as persuasive authority. Judicial
precedent as a whole is the way in which English law provides and maintains consistency and
predictability. This assumption of consistency and predictability through judicial precedent allows
the law to exude a sense of certainty, fairness and by extension some amount of flexibility; but the
question is, how can something which is consistent and predictable to such a degree that it is
considered certain exhibit flexibility? After all one would think that in order to be consistent and
predictable there must be rigidity involved.
Before we can delve into the relationship between certainty and flexibility in judicial precedent,
each element must be explored individually. Unlike legislation and statue which most times speak to
hypothetical situations, judicial precedent is a response to real situation and as such there is a
foundation of pragmatism which holds the principle together. As it relates to certainty, the law is
established in such a way that it is possible to predict what a decision will be and plan accordingly.
There is a sense of security in this element of judicial precedence because once a legal rule has been
established it is binding and cannot changed by a later or lower court, individuals can therefore
adjust their behavior with regard to the legal rule.

Stare Decisis Case Study
The Stare decisis was implemented as a doctrine in 1066 that served as a legal principle to recognize
previous decisions as precedents to guide future deliberations. It is a type of principle that forms the
basis for our modern law of adhering to precedent and makes the predictability in the law. The court
means that the stare decisis standing by decided matters and the jurisdiction over them making it
harder to argue a policy. Ultimately, a case that was decided on before could potentially end up
being overturned. I believe that consistency is important when applying stare decisis with the
decision of each case on individually basis. For example, there are several of cases that were
consistent with parameters of the doctrine of stare decisis. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net
...
The stare decisis plays an important role in a court's decision and contributes to the overall
developmental process of a case. Also, the American criminal justice would not be what it is today if
stare decisis were an inexorable command. If the court decisions were changed from one Judge to
another, the American justice system would be very fluid and we would continue to reinvent the
wheel. Subsequently, the Supreme Court of Tennessee upheld Payne's conviction and sentence as it
was applied in Payne v. Tennessee in 1991. During the closing arguments of Payne's sentencing, the
victim impact statements were permissible from the victim's grandmother by the prosecutor. The
previous law did not prevent the victim impact statements from being admitted as evidence. I
believe that stare decisis provides consistency, stability and equality in today's criminal justice
system. Additionally, stare decisis is vital to our Constitution and the future of the criminal justice
system. The Judges and Justice have the basic responsibility to uphold the law in good faith. One of
the principles of stare decisis is a court should not overturn a decision that was already considered
settled. For example, I have a rule in my household that my kids will go to bed by 8:30 PM on
school nights, so I have to consistently uphold that rule.

Court Of Final Appeal : A Solicitor V Law Society Of Hong...
Introduction
In Li CJ's judgment in A Solicitor v Law Society of Hong Kong [2008] 2 HKC 1, he commented in
paragraph 9 that the "rigid and inflexible adherence by this Court to the previous precedents may
unduly inhibit the proper development of the law and may cause injustice in individual cases. The
great strength of the common law lies in its capacity to develop to meet the changing needs and
circumstances of the society in which it functions." In this essay, this statement would be discussed
with reference to the role of the courts and their relationship to the legislature.
Discussion
Under the Basic Law, the role of courts include to adjudicate cases in accordance to the law, as well
as to interpret laws when necessary. In the case of A Solicitor v Law Society of Hong Kong, the
deciding court was the Court of Final Appeal (CFA), a newly established highest court under the
new constitutional order of 1997. This case was considered a landmark case as the CFA decided to
depart from a recent Privy Council decision and went out on setting a new doctrine of binding
precedent under the new constitutional order of Hong Kong.
In the statement, it is mentioned that the great strength of the common law lies in its capacity to
develop to meet the changing needs and circumstances of the society in which it functions. A case to
illustrate this point would be W v Registrar of Marriages [2013] HKCFA 39 (CFA).
In W v Registrar of Marriages, there was a dispute on whether English

The Laws Affects People 's Everyday Life And A Business
The law affects people's everyday life and a business is not an exception. There are many definitions
of law, but nor one can be generally accepted, because with so many types of the law, these
definitions cannot cover every aspect of the law properly. Therefore, the law can be simply
described as the principles, rules and regulations, created by the state (the parliament) and
established within a community.
From the history, in the time of Henry II, the law was based only on the customs that were then
applied by all other judges all around the country, known as common law. Common law principles
created the basis for today's law and helps distinguish between the law created by previous decisions
and the law created by legislation. For instance, murder is a common law because it is not defined
by the Act of Parliament, unlike theft what is defined by Theft Act 1968. Martin(2010)
Since the Human Right Act 1998 section 2(1)(a) English law is determined by the European Union
and the judge must take into account human right cases of the European Court of Justice as well as
the English law cases. However, it is very different from the other countries law. In contrast, while
deciding a case in the UK, judge is bound to apply a judicial precedent of a higher court, based on
the previous cases' judgements and principles known as ratio decidendi (the reason for deciding),
rather than being only guided by previous cases like other European Union countries. Based on
Martin(2010), The

Advantages And Disadvantages Of Precedent
Introduction
This essay will discuss how Irish courts have applied the doctrine of precedent. It will review the
advantages and disadvantages of the doctrine of Stare Decisis. Additionally, it will compare and
contrast the Supreme Court and the High Court with regards to its position on precedent. It will
show that precedent is not a 'binding unalterable rule', as stated in Rigoni in Common–Law judicial
reasoning and Analogy, by explaining the practice of distinguishing. It build a clear picture of the
flexibility of the courts when it comes to precedent. Although precedent is largely unquestioned by
Irish Courts, that doesn't mean that it's a rigid, fixed rule.
Advantages and Disadvantages of the Doctrine of Stare Decisis Precedent is the ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
It upholds the concept of legal certainty of law and is committed to the Doctrine of Stare Decisis.
Similar to the Supreme Court, the High court will depart from precedent but is unlikely to do so. In
Attorney General V Residential Institutions Board, Hogan J decided a case but would have done so
differently if it wasn't covered by recent authority. Thus he was compelled to follow precedent with
'deep personal reluctance'. It is clear that the High Court is reluctant to depart from Precedent. In
Kearns v Manresa Estates Ltd [1975], Kenny observed that the High Court will not depart from
precedent unless the case has been wrongly decided. There are practical reasons for this. The High
Court is the court of first Instance and it ought to ensure predictability and stability. There is the
option to the Supreme Court if the parties involved are not happy with the decision. The Supreme
Court can be more flexible and can take into account other facts of the case. Both the Supreme
Court and the High Court have the possibility of departing from president. This proves that the
Doctrine of Stare Decisis is more normative policy rather than a binding

Why Do Chinese Courts Accept Precedents And The Judicial...
TO WHAT EXTENT, DO CHINESE COURTS ACCEPT PRECEDENTS AS A REFERENCE IN
JUDICIAL DECISION–MAKING?
In the course of globalization, there is a trend for legal systems in common law jurisdiction and civil
law jurisdiction to learn and absorb the advantages from each other. In general, common law
countries now have more codifications of statutes than before whereas civil law countries have
become more active in promoting the use of precedents. As for the People Republic of China
(hereafter "China" or "the people republic"), it has gone through years of debates regarding whether
it should adopt the Doctrine of Precedent, which refer to case–law system in common law
jurisdiction, as a civil law countries.
Despite the fact that many scholars ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
According to Black's Law Dictionary (1990), a precedent is an adjudged case or decision of a court
which is regarded as an example or authority for a subsequent case or a latter question of law on
identical or similar issues. However, this has not clearly explained how the precedent regime used in
common law jurisdiction is different from one that a state from statute law jurisdiction may use. As
Goodhart points out, the real differences in the two systems are the binding effect of decided cases
(Doctrine of Precedent). It would be too complex to explain the whole rule of binding precedent
here and, for the sake of the latter discussion, we only need to know one aspect: while precedent
cases create no legal obligation for a civil–law judge to follow, a judge from common law countries
is obligated to follow a precedent judgment and the legal reasoning in it made by a superior court or
a court in the same level if a subsequence case contains identical facts and issues.
Based on this difference, some observers claim that China does not have a formal binding precedent
system and also denies the value of the established precedent regime in current China. Admittedly,
there is no legal recognition granting to an establishment of case law system in China, but this does

Importance Of Precedent Within Our Common Law And The...
Precedent
Introduction
For this discussion, this learner will explicate the importance of precedent within our common law
and the accompanying concepts of stare decisis and distinguishing cases. Then this learner will
provide an example of a U.S. Supreme Court case that was decided in light of one of these concepts.
Draw a distinction between reliable and questionable sources on the Internet.
Precedent
What does precedent mean in regards to common law? It means that if there is a case that was
previously decided on that has established a principle or rule that could be used by a judicial when
deciding cases that tend to be very similar in issues or facts. So, how many different doctrine of
precedent are there? Well, there are two basic ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Therefore, the persuasive precedent "takes place when a court interprets a law and regards the
decision as non–obligatory, and characteristically arises when a court, from another jurisdiction,
delivers a verdict that is subsequently observed by another court in a different jurisdiction"
("Understanding Precedent", n.d., para. 5). For example, a South Carolina court's interpretation of a
particular law is not binding in a North Carolina court; nonetheless, the ruling on a specific matter
can be viewed and act as a persuasive precedent.
Stare Decisis This learner believes that ever law or legal precedent was created to help the US
maintain control and render punishment when individuals choice to break the law. So, what does
stare decisis mean? Well, the term "Stare decisis" means ""to stand by decided matters", and itself an
abbreviation of the Latin phrase "stare decisis et non quieta movere" which translates as "to stand by
decisions and not to disturb settled matters"" (Perell, n.d., para. 2). Fundamentally, with this
doctrine, it allows the verdict of an upper court "within the same provincial jurisdiction acts as
binding authority on a lower court within that same jurisdiction, and the decision of a court of
another jurisdiction only can act as persuasive authority" (Gall, n.d., para. 3). To this learner, it
would seem that the degree of an individual's slickness is dependent

The House Of Lords ' Outlook Regarding The Doctrine Of...
The House of Lords' outlook concerning the doctrine of precedent is reflected in Lord Woolf's
statement in the case of R v Simpson [2003] . The excerpt brings up the practice of the courts, and
how the rules of precedent 'had to be applied bearing in mind that their objective was to assist in the
administration of justice', as well as precedential certainty and flexibility. The dicta used in his
lengthy statement leaves space for discussion, such as; the precedent 'assisting' the administration of
justice, the 'appropriate degree' of certainty that precedent carries. There is also room for
examination as to just how far flexibility in precedent serves a positive purpose to meet
contemporary needs.
The first point of discussion stems from the objective of precedent to assist in the administration of
justice'. Being a key component of the common law legal system, precedent is based on stare
decisis, which is Latin for 'to stand by things decided', and is the first rule of precedent . It refers to
policy of the court to abide by rulings set by decisions made in previous cases. This involves the
ratio decidendi, which is the basis of binding precedent because it stands as the reasoning behind a
ruling. Without this, the doctrine of precedent would be unable to operate. Parts of the judgment that
do not form the ratio are referred to as obiter dicta, and are merely persuasive precedent. The second
rule of precedent is in relation to court hierarchy . An integral part of the

Judges Must Make Law
INTRODUCTION:
Parliament, the supreme law–making body, has an unrestricted legislative power, and the laws it
passes cannot be set aside by the courts. The role of judges, in relation to laws enacted by
Parliament, is to interpret and apply them, rather than to pass judgment on whether they are good or
bad laws. However, evidence has shown that they have a tendency to deviate from their 'real roles'
and instead formulate laws on their own terms. Thus the real role of a judge in any legal system
continues to be a phenomenon questioned by many. We must consider whether they are
"authoritarian law–makers, or if their profession makes them mere declarers of the law" . In this
essay, I will argue the ways that judges do make law as well as ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
However, in Tremain v Pike it was held that the rare disease was not foreseeable and refused the
claim; the court held that you cannot foresee a rare disease. Evidently, both the decisions are
inconsistent with one another; "The judge consequently had greater freedom of justification in
applying the reasonable foresight test than he might otherwise have done" . Thus one may argue that
decisions are dependent on judicial styles, as opposed to precedent, which concurs with Hart's
perspective.
PRECEDENT:
One may argue that precedent restrains a judge in making decisions regarding the outcome of a case.
In its basic structure it means that any court is bound by the decision of a higher court in the judicial
hierarchy provided that the facts of the present case are similar to those of the previous case. Thus,
every court is bound by decisions made by the HL, and in their absence, those made by the CA.
Wendell Holmes Jnr stated, "the life of the Law has not been logic; it has been experience" . This
idea implies judges draw from past decisions in order to determine current cases. However, whilst it
can act as a tool for constraint, there are alternatives to following precedent which include
distinguishing, overruling, and reversing. Thus judges try to avoid compliance with precedent and
employ their own individual discretions.
Distinguishing a case on its facts is

The doctrine of judicial precedent is based on the principle of stare decisis which means 'to stand by
what has been decided'. It is a common law principle whereby judges are bound to follow previous
decisions in cases where the material facts are sufficiently similar and the earlier decision was made
in a court above the current one in the court hierarchy. This doctrine of precedent is extremely
strong in English law as it ensures fairness and consistency and it highlights the importance of case
law in our legal system. 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."
For this system to operate ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This statement was obiter dicta because it did not directly relate to the facts of this particular case.
This persuasive precedent was followed in the case of R v Gotts (1992) where a defendant charged
with attempted murder tried to use the defence of duress in the Court of Appeal. The ratio decidendi
of R v Gotts (1992) then formed its own binding precedent.
Other persuasive precedents include decisions of the Scottish courts and those made in the courts of
other Commonwealth countries such as Australia and Canada. This may be because a case with
these particular facts has not been heard in the English Courts before but may have been heard in
another country. This was the case in R v R (1991) where the Court of Appeal and House of Lords
followed previous decisions made by the Scottish courts that a man could be found guilty of raping
his wife.
Another persuasive precedent are dissenting judgements which come from the appeal courts. In the
Supreme Court and Court of Appeal the cases are heard by more than one judge and sometimes a
decision is reached by only a majority of these judges. The judges in the minority will also give a
judgement for why they came to their decisions and this is called a dissenting judgement.
A dissenting judgement was followed by Lord Denning in the case of Candler

Advantages And Disadvantages Of The Malaysian Judicial System
Law is a set of rules. Law can be utilized to anyone and is to restrict the human. The Malaysian
Judicial System is based on the English legal system which succeeded by the history of the British.
Malaysian Judicial System set for the cases like criminal and civil litigation. Litigation is a court
process of starting and sustain or protecting a legal action. The Malaysian court system have both
criminal and civil jurisdiction. They have power and have to be responsibility to hear certain cases.
The court was constituted by statute under Part IX of the Constitution. The higher court will hear
and make decision on the more important or serious cases. The Malaysia judicial power is fixed in
the hierarchy of courts which have Superior Courts, Subordinate ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
The advantages are certainty, practicality and flexibility. Certainty is one of the greatest advantages
of the doctrine. The people can aim their actions with faith with the results in greater certainty. For
the practicality, the law evolved was ground on reality instead of theoretical conditions. With there
is still an adaptability that the judges can prevent from following previous cases if it had been settled
incaution or by distinguishing precedents while the higher courts restrict the lower courts with its
decision. The first disadvantages of doctrine of binding judicial precedent is rigidity. A lower courts
must follow a prior precedent even it is wrong and also the cases may not go on for appeal to a
higher court. The chances of amending the previous result may be lost and the judges must give a
good reason for denying the previous precedents. The other disadvantages is hard to determine the
ratio decidendi as there may be more than one ratio decidendi. So, this makes the judges very
difficult to discover the right ratio decidendi. In the cases Rickards v Lothian (1913), the judges give
more than one ratio decidendi. There is hundreds of judgement are made every year. The massive
and rising of number in cases become a main problem with the doctrine and the complexity of the
law. This let the important authority unintentionally be

Persuasive Authority Is Dependent On The Case And Evidence
Persuasive Authority is dependent on the case and evidence that is presented to the courts. This
could come in the form of comparisons of the cases, even though both belong to different
hierarchies, and how the evidence is presented and if there stands to be a justifiable reasoning for
including persuasive authority. In order for the case to be convincing, the case must be identical.
Over a period of time, the strength of persuasive authority may change in light of new evidence in
various jurisdictions, or even changes in precedents through legislation, over ruling a previous
decision or even a superior court reversing their own previous case. To further make a persuasive
authority more compelling, it must attempt to show strength through the following; Level of court –
where the decision was cast from. Status – this means the status of the judge that made the previous
decision. Decision was or was not reversed – if the persuasive case was reversed or had a prior
reversal, it becomes less persuasive in a court of law. Strong dissenting judgement. The fact
presented are distinguishing. HOW BINDING AUTHORITY MAY NOT BE FOLLOWED In
practise binding authority may not be used within the cases. In terms of seeking out a just sentence
on a case, some may decide that using, with a substantial cause, a persuasive authority may be used.
This depends on the strengths of the persuasive argument, as statement in a previous paragraph. If,
for example there isn't enough

Judicial precedent is one of the unwritten law in Malaysia. The sources of law not only come from
legislation but also from the cases decided by the courts. The courts in this context refer to the
superior court in Malaysia, which are the Court Of Appeal, the Federal Court, High Court of Malaya
and the High Court of Sabah & Sarawak.
Judicial precedent also knows as case law, judicial decision or the stare decisis. The term 'judicial'
refers to anything about the court while the term 'precedent' refers to the decision of the previous
cases which have the exactly same material facts with the recent cases. Material facts refer to those
reasonable and logical facts apart from unimportant and pointless facts, which will affect the
decision and outcome of the cases.
The existing of the doctrine of binding judicial precedent is to seek for justice and equality by
ensuring the cases with the same material facts should be treated with the same ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
This is because when the decision of previous case is made, there is a consistent result is the
decision of the court is bound by the superior jurisdiction in the previous cases. The precedent also
helps to ensure that the judges are making the final decision without any mistake or overconfidence
with the help of the guidance which is referring to the previous cases. It helps to ensure the justice of
law by not allowing the judges to make random decision of the case.
Next, predictability is also one of the advantages of the doctrine of judicial precedent. For example,
the degree of certainty can be advised by the lawyers to their clients. The predictability of law is also
important for the qualification of a person in Government to help in funding their legal action. With
the predictability of judicial precedent, the cases with less chance of successful will not fund by the
Government because it would cause in wasting of taxpayers'

Why Is Constitutional Law Important To The Development Of...
According to the development of British Constitution, Parliament gained its power over the
monarchy in 1688, meaning that " under UK constitutional law, it is recognised that parliament has
the power to enact, revoke or alter such, and any, law as it sees fit." The Human Rights Act (HRA)
1998 also reaffirms this by saying that "its recognition of the power of parliament to make primary
legislation that is incompatible with the rights provided under the European Convention on Human
Rights (ECHR). Even though judges must abide by the will of Parliament, there are some cases were
statutes have to be amended for a number of reasons and in this essay these will be discussed. In
order to show why same cases need to be amended,the three main rules used which include the
Literal, Golden and Mischief rule will be discussed. A number of different cases will be discussed in
order to better interpret these rules. Next the different interpretations and presumptions used by
judges will be explained. Lastly a conclusion about amending statutes will be discussed and why
this is more beneficial to the courts.
Case law involves using legal precedent in order to solve cases that have come to court, "refers to
the creation and refinement of law in the course of judicial decisions." Since "the doctrine of binding
precedent, or stare decisis, lies at the heart of the English legal system," this means that when judges
have a case, they will always first check to see if there has been a similar

Stare Decisis Case Study
In this case study, I will explore the concept of stare decisis and wherether it is in exorable
command. I will be explaining what the court means when it say that" stare decisis is not an
inexorable command". Also what it would mean for the American system of criminal justice, if stare
decisis actually was "inexorable command". Stare Decisis is not an Inexorable Command
It's referring to precedents. Precedents are previous decisions of the court that need to be followed
by courts in the same or lower in the hierarchy. The court must give consideration but there is no
rule on how it should apply it to the facts of the case at hand.
Basically, under the doctrine of stare decisis, the decision of a higher court within the same
provincial

Pros And Cons Of Binding Precedent
Precedent is based on stare decisis, stand by what is decided. Every court is bound to follow any
decisions made by a court above it in the hierarchy and appeal courts are generally bound by their
own decisions, if the facts are similar. In addition, most appeal courts are generally bound by their
own previous decisions. For example, both the Court of Appeal and the Divisional Court of the High
Court are usually bound by their own previous decisions.
Judges must follow the ratio decidendi of the case i.e. the legal reason for the decision. This is
known as binding precedent. Anything else said in the judgement is known as obiter dicta and is
merely persuasive precedent i.e. may be followed e.g. sometimes courts will use decisions of ...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
However, the House of Lords will not always use the Practice Direction to overrule a previous
decision. In C v DPP (1995) concerning criminal liability for children and R v Clegg (1995)
concerning self–defence, they refused to change the law. In both of these cases they that if a change
was required it was best left to parliament as wider issues were involved.
In R V Simpson (2003) Lord Woolf summed up the House of Lords view of precedent:
"The rules of precedent reflect the practice of the courts and have to be applied bearing in mind that
their objective is to assist in the administration of justice. They are of considerable importance
because of their role in achieving the appropriate degree of certainty as to the law. This is an
important requirement of any system of justice. The principles should not however, be regarded as
so rigid that they cannot develop in order to meet contemporary needs."
3. The Practice Direction refers to the major advantages and disadvantages of judicial precedent.
Identify and explain

Fundamentals of Law
Table of Contents
Question 1 1 1.1 Introduction 2 1.2 Offer 2 1.3 Counter offer 4 1.4 Option contract 4 1.5 Acceptance
5 1.6 Postal Rule 5 Question 2:. 7 2.1 What is Judicial Precedent? 7 2.2 Hierarchy of Precedents 8
2.3 Limitations and Types of Judicial Precedent 9 2.4 Advantages and Disadvantages of Judicial
Precedent 10 2.5 Contributions of Judicial Precedent 12 3.0 References 14
Question 1
On 13 September, Fiona, a newly qualified dentist, receives the following note from her uncle:
10 Park Street
Nilai
71800 Negeri Sembilan
Malaysia
Dear Fiona
We talked some time ago about your buying some of my dental equipment when I retire from my
practice at the end of this month. I am prepared to let ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
On the other side, Mrs Carlill bought one of the balls and used it in the manner specified, yet still
managed to get influenza. When she asked for the reward the Carbolic Company claimed that there
was no enforceable contract between it and the user of the smoke ball on the grounds that there was
no acceptance of the offer, because Mrs Carlill had never notified the Company that she accepted its
offer, nor furnished any consideration. The court held that in unilateral offers, the advertisement is
an offer which was accepted by Mrs Carlill. The courts also looked at the parties intention, such as
the fact that 1000 pounds were deposited in the Bank showed a genuine intention to create a legal
relationship. There was consideration furnished by Mrs Carlill when she purchased the smoke balls.
Hence there was a binding contract.
The second type of offer is bilateral which is an agreement in which both parties make a promise or
promises to the other party. For example A offers to sell his motorcycle to B for RM2500 . B accepts
the offer by promising to pay A.
Offer can be made by using 2 methods which according to section 9 Contracts Act 1950 are by
expressly such as in writing and impliedly such as by conduct or orally.
On the other hand, invitation to treat is an action by one party which may appear to be a contractual
offer but which is

Essay on Judicial Precedent
This essay will examine the doctrine of Judicial precedent that helps form the English Legal System.
It will illustrate various views that have been raised by Judges and relating cases to the use of 'Stare
decisis' when creating precedents. In addition it will discuss how the developments in the powers of
the courts now also allow them to depart from these precedents to an extent.
The doctrine of Judicial precedent applies the principles of stare decisis which 'lets the decision
stand'. 'Whenever a new problem arises in law the final decision forms a rule to be followed in all
similar cases, making the law more predictable' making it easier for people to live within the law.
An original precedent is where a point of law is decided for ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
The highest rank court is the European Court of Justice, and the European Court of Human Rights.
Below this, yet the highest and most powerful ranked in the United Kingdom, is the House of Lords
also recognised as the Supreme Courts since 2009. The decisions of this court are binding on all
other courts lower in the hierarchy. Prior to 1966 the House of Lords were too bound by their own
decisions to help ensure certainty unless it was seen to be made 'per incurium' (by error). This meant
the House of Lords could not overrule a previous decision even if it was socially outdated. This was
illustrated in London Tramways v London CC where it was held certainty of the law was more
important than individual hardship . However, the introduction of the Practice Statement 1966 gave
the House of Lords flexibility to amend a law if it is 'right to do so'. In the appeal documents a
material change of circumstances usually has to be shown. The Practice Statement (HL: Judicial
Precedent) [1966] 1 W.L.R.1234, per Lord Gardiner, argued for and against a rigid system of
binding precedent and highlighted that even though certainty is of importance within the making of
Laws, to follow past precedents blindly will lead to injustice. The House of Lords freed itself from a
self–imposed restraint by exercising its inherent jurisdiction as a court to change its own practice.
The first use of the Practice Statement was where Conway v Rimmer departed from the

Disadvantages Of Precedent
The doctrine of precedent, or stare decisis, is a common practice in the common law systems. It
states that judges are to follow the court's previous decisions when deciding cases with the same
facts. It is simply an ideal of "deciding similar cases in a similar manner"1 so that consistency is
maintained when deciding cases. There are a number of advantages and disadvantages in common
law systems where judges make the law. In fact, the question of whether judges in common law
systems make the law is controversial and debatable. Different judges have different opinions on
this question. Recently, however, more judges are accepting that they actually do make law, which
raises another question on the limitation of the judges' power and the concept of parliamentary
sovereignty. The rules of binding precedent say that judges must follow earlier decided cases, or, in
other words, previous decisions of the courts are binding on other lower courts and some courts are
even bound to their own decisions even though it may have been wrongly ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
For instance, Lord Browne–Wilkinson said "this theoretical position [that judges do not make or
change law] is, as Lord Reid said, a fairy tale in which no one any longer believes. In truth, judges
make and change law".10 It shows that the idea has spread and was becoming more widely
accepted. It has become the modern way of viewing the judicial law–making. I agree with this idea
because it is more sensible and rationally supported. It seems more reasonable and practical. One
can explain clearly the origin of law that judges decide on cases and those decisions become law and
that court decisions can be regarded as a main source of law. There is no 'fiction' or unexplainable
statement involved. However, when the fact that judges make law become accepted, more questions
are raised on the effectiveness and legitimacy of judicial

Doctrine Of Judicial Precedent
The doctrine of judicial precedent form part of the Malaysia system. The legal is one of the general
characteristics of the English legal system. Judicial precedent is a decision of a higher court that will
be binding on a lower court in hierarchy.The doctrine of judicial precedent is also called stare
decisis.The judges will follow the decision or judgement of the previous cases if the facts and law
are similar. For example,Federal Court's decision is binding on Court of Appeal.This means "like
cases are treated a like". Precedent may consist of ratio decidendi,obiter dicta and res judicata.Ratio
decidendi means the reason for the decision.lt can be explained as the legitimate reasoning upon
which the judgement in a specific case and the judges may use it in the future cases if the facts of
the case is similar.Sir Rupert Cross defines the ratio decidendi as " any rule expressly or impliedly
treated by the judge as a necessary step in searching his conclusion. " Obiter dicta means "things
said by the way," in Latin phrase. Obiter dicta are anything else said about the law such as
remarks,further observations and opinions on other matters made by the judge.Although obiter dicta
have no binding powers,it still can influence the decision of the judges.Res judicata is the final
structure of the court ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This method balances these two competing

Defining The Concept Of Precedent
CONCEPT OF PRECEDENT
Explain the Concept of Precedent to a Lay Person
Hart (2012) stated that precedent is a concept that has its origins in the Latin language. It is an
adjective that refers to that "appearance before or is otherwise pre respect". For example: with this
precedent, I do not think we grant the loan request, the scandal sparked by congressman is
unprecedented in the history of the national congress, and there is no precedent for such a situation.
We speak of legal precedent when a decision of a court is an obligatory authority required for the
same court and others of equal or lower rank. LaMorte (2002) noted that doctrine of precedent arose
in the common law legal system. It is currently outstanding in all legal systems given the importance
of court decisions, not only in its own field (the application of law) but to the extent that it has
relevance as a formal source of law. Analysis of legal precedent has special complexity since the
following dimensions are involved: the objective dimension related to what is effective of precedent,
and that leads us to distinguish between ratio decidendi and obiter dicta. They are concerning the
structural dimension to constitute precedents decisions with regard to a further decision. The
institutional dimension related to the organization of courts and the relations of authority between
them.
It can be understood as any previous history of a situation. Suppose a player is expelled for
punching a rival player. In

The Doctrine Of Judicial Law
Before critically analysing the extent to which the doctrine of judicial precedent affects judicial law
making, one must first contemplate what the doctrine of judicial precedent is. The doctrine is a rule
that all lower courts are to be bound by the decision or ratio decidendi of the higher courts. As a
result of this, cases that are alike are decided in a similar way . However, it is not this simple, as it
will be seen throughout this essay that wider circumstances are involved that affect the judicial law
making process. Judicial law making (otherwise known as common law) is judge made law rather
than law set out in statute. The relationship between the two will be evaluated. Firstly, it is important
to outline the types of decisions that are made in courts. Decisions made in the courts are the starting
point of the doctrine of judicial precedent because it is these decisions that binds the courts in
subsequent cases. This can help the courts but can also hinder them when creating common law
principles. Two different types of decision making should then be outlined, these being 'rule based'
and 'reason based' decisions. When a decision is made it can either be made on the strict rules that
apply to the situation or on the balance of all relevant reason. Due to the doctrine, lower courts must
take the former approach being bound by the rules established in the decisions of the higher courts.
Rule based decisions are supported by Sir William Blackstone who observed the

Donoghue V Stevenson Case Essay
Essay Question: Read Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] A.C. 562. Assess the way in which Lords
Atkin and Buckmaster use the case law they discuss in at least three instances (eg Langridge v Levy;
Winterbottom v Wright; Longmeid v Holliday; George v Skivington; Heaven v Pender; Le Lievre v
Gould; etc), with reference to the operation of the doctrine of precedent and the techniques of
applying and distinguishing cases. This will require you to do much more than describe the facts of
any of the cases involved; we are interested in the legal/judicial techniques employed by the judges
and how they deal with previous case law that could be regarded as favourable or adverse to the
judges' preferred view of the common law in Mrs Donoghue's case.
By way of comment, identify and evaluate the operation of Llewellyn's law jobs in this case.
Name: Abisola Ewaoluwa Ajisola In this essay I plan to identify and discuss the technical use of
some case law by Lords Atkin and Buckmaster. Also to provide an in depth explanation of the
reasons for the way their Lordships treat the cases as they do. Firstly, previous cases or a higher
court need not bind Lord Buckmaster and Lord Atkin as they are operating in the Supreme Court
(formerly known as The House of Lords) and there is no higher court. However they may be bound
by their own pervious decisions.
Lord Buckmaster was a slave to precedent, and was unwilling to allow the common law to adapt to
meet the perceived needs of modern society . In

The Differences Of The English Common Law And Civil Law
Relocating to Germany would mean that the business must consider how the different law systems
will affect them as a business, therefore they must establish the differences between English
common law and the civil law. The English common law is set based on decisions made by the
higher courts, judicial opinion and similar cases which is known as "doctrine of Stare decisis " while
the civil law consists of a "codified set of laws" . The common law involves the judges making the
decisions, setting the precedent, and controlling the conflict between the opposing parties. This
differs to civil law as judges must apply the relevant law to the case and make a judgement based on
that.
The common law is built through judgements made from the higher courts instead of through
statutes or written legislations, this common law system is mainly put into place for similar cases to
receive fair and similar treatments. This means that judges follow how previously decided cases
were treated based on their facts, this is known as judicial precedent. Hence why this is advantage as
these opinions are developed and written at the end of trials which then are set as precedents to
apply to similar cases in the future, this therefore means that individuals receive a fair and equal
treatment. It also assists people with having a better idea on how their cases will be treated
depending on the circumstances. For instance, "R v R [1992]" case where the defendant attempted to
rape his wife, even though

Judicial Precedent Is Based On Stare Decisis
1A)
Judicial precedent is based on Stare decisis therefore in similar cases judges have to follow their
own decisions and decisions made by judges before are binding on similar cases in the future to
which previous ratio decidendi applies in order to reach a final decision. Ratio decidendi forms a
binding precedent which means that in future cases it has to be followed which contain the same
principles. Donoghue v Stevenson in 1932 set a legal precedent still in use today.
1B)
Ratio decidendi refers to the part of judgment where explanations are given regarding the reasons
for a decision. It is the general grounds rom which a decision is taken. Sometimes a judge may refer
to a number of matters during the case which may not directly ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Part payment of debt is a promise to accept part payment of debt for a certain time and this does not
count as good consideration for a lesser payment. unless something extra has been given up the
person is still able to sue for the balance. It is also important that it must be equitable for the
promisor to go back on his promise
Sam is able to reply on the doctrine of Promissory Estoppel which states a contract can be enforced
even though there is no consideration.
4A)
A breach of contract is when one party doesn 't perform the contract in a way which is expected or
doesn 't perform the contract at all. There are different ways in which a contract can be breached and
the first of these is a minor breach which once this happens the innocent party is entitled to
compensation but the contract is not terminated. The second manner a contract can be breached is a
fundamental breach where the contract can be terminated and damages can be claimed such as in the
case of Poussard vs Spiers (1876) where the breach was great enough to warrant a termination of
contract between two parties.

Difference Between A Binding Precedent And A Persuasive...
2. Explain the difference between a binding precedent and a persuasive precedent?
Within the United States, the judicial system follows the principle of stare decisis. Whereas, courts
should abide by the precedents established by superior courts" (Berman, Bowman, West, & Van
Wart, 2016, p. 56). The apex of the judicial system, within the United States, is the Supreme Court
followed by the 12 federal circuit courts and the 90 federal district courts providing the base of the
federal judicial system. States follow a similar pyramid structure (Berman et al., 2016, p. 56).
The principle of stare decisis is generally followed by the levels of the judicial system. Court's
opinions may be based on either binding or persuasive precedents. An opinion is considered a
binding or controlling precedent if it has been written by a court in a higher position within the
pyramid structure. Therefore, a precedent written by a federal circuit court should be abided by the
federal district court directly below it on the pyramid but not by the Supreme Court which is located
above it on the pyramid. However, a court may treat the opinion as a persuasive precedent in which
they "choose to embrace a well–reasoned, nonbinding opinion" (Berman et al., 2016, p. 56).
Therefore, the judge or judges may view the opinion as having no precedent over the case and are
non–binding but provides consideration and guidance for the current case.
3. What is the Hatch Act?
It was not uncommon during the 1800s for

Consider How The Doctrine Of Binding Precedent Operates In...

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Megan Espinoza

More from Megan Espinoza (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Consider How The Doctrine Of Binding Precedent Operates In...