Logo
Providing resources for studying law
 
Contract law
     
     e.lawresources.co.uk
 
Top Ringtones for your Mobile!
    
...providing resources for
studying law.
 
 
 
 
Helping you to achieve....
 
 
BlackBerry Games & Themes from Bplay
 
Exam success!
 
 
www.oli.co.uk
 
unfair terms
 
 
 
Custom Search
Home      Sources of law      Judicial precedent
 
 
Judicial precedent

 

Stare decisis 
 
 
The doctrine of judicial precedent is based on stare decisis. That is the standing by of previous decisions. Once a point of law has been decided in a particular case, that law must be applied in all future cases containing the same material facts.
 
For example in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson[1932] AC 562, (Case summary). The House of Lords held that a manufacturer owed a duty of care to the ultimate consumer of the product. This set a binding precedent which was followed in Grant v Austalian Knitting Mills [1936] AC 85 (Case summary). Also in Shaw v DPP [1962] AC 220 (Case summary) the House of Lords held that a crime of conspiracy to corrupt public morals existed. This was followed in Knuller v DPP [1973] AC 435 (Case summary).   
 
 
 
 
 
In order for the doctrine of judicial precedent to work, it is necessary to be able to determine what a point of law is. In the course of delivering a judgment, the judge will set out their reasons for reaching a decision. The reasons which are necessary for them to reach their decision amount to the ratio decidendi of the case. The ratio decidendi forms the legal principle which is a binding precedent meaning it must be followed in future cases containing the same material facts. It is important to separate the ratio decidendi from the obiter dicta. The obiter dicta is things stated in the course of a judgment which are not necessary for the decision.
 
 
 
 
 
In addition to binding precedents, there exists persuasive precedents. These consist of judicial statements which are not binding but may be taken into account. A form of persuasive precedent is obiter dicta. Persuasive precedents also include case law from other jurisdictions and traditionally the Privy Council decisions have been merely persuasive on the English courts. However, exceptionally the Privy Council may be binding:
 
 
 
Attorney General for Jersey v Holley [2005] 3 WLR 29           Case summary
 
 
 
Hierarchy of the courts 
 
 
There exists a hierarchy of the courts. The basic rule is that a court must follow the precedents from a higher court, but they are not bound to follow decisions from courts lower in the hierarchy. A basic outline of the hierarchy is:
 
 
 
 
 
*
 
 
European Court of Justice
 
 
**
 
Supreme Court (formerly House of Lords)
 
 
***
 
 
Court of Appeal
 
 
****
 
Divisional Courts
 
 
*****
 
 
 
All other courts (County, Crown, Magistrates, tribunals - these have no power to create precedents)
 
 
 
 
Where the precedent was set by a court of the same level, the court is generally bound by the previous decision, but this is subject to exceptions. Different considerations apply depending on the level of court as to whether the court may depart from a previous decision of a court of the same level.
 
 
 
 
 
 
European Court of Justice
 
The  European Court of Justice does not recognise the doctrine of precedent and is free to depart from its own previous decisions.
 
 
 
 
House of Lords/Supreme Court
 
The House of Lords was replaced by the Supreme Court from 1st October 2009. The Supreme court will exercise the same jurisdiction as the House of Lords and the current Law Lords will take office as Justices of the Supreme Court.
 
 
At one time the House of Lords were absolutely bound by their own previous decisions:
 
 
 
 
However, in 1966 the Lord Chancellor, Lord Gardiner, issued a Practice Statement allowing the House of Lords to depart from a previous decision where it appears right to do so:
 
 
 
 
 
Whilst the House of Lords had this power they were reluctant to use it:
 
 
Knuller v DPP [1973] AC 435     Case summary 
 
refused to the overrule controversial of: 
 
 
 
Shaw v DPP [1962] AC 220     Case summary
 
 
 
In considering whether to use the 1966 Practice Statement the House of Lords needs to be mindful of the retrospective effect of their decisions (See declaratory theory below for more info). In Cunningham [1982] AC 566 Case summary the House of Lords refused to overrule the previous decision of R v Vickers [1957] 2 QB 664 Case summary because of the retrospective effect it would have on those convicted of murder and had been subject to the death penalty.
 
 
Cases where the House of Lords have used the Practice Statement:
 
 
 
British Railways Board v Herrington [1972] AC 877   Case summary overruled Addie v. Dumbreck  [1929] AC 358    Case summary  on an occupiers duty owed to trespassers. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Court of Appeal
 
 
 
 
Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd [1944] KB 718


Davis v Johnson [1978] 2 WLR 553

R v Gould [1968] 2 QB 65

Dyson Holdings Ltd v Fox [1976] QB 503


Rickards v Rickards [1989] 3 WLR 748

 
 
Divisional Courts
 
 
Ways of avoiding precedent
 
Overruling
Reversing
Distinguishing
 
 
Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571         Case summary

Merritt v Merritt [1970] 1 WLR 1211          Case summary 
 
 
 
Declaratory theory of law making
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
R v R [1991] 3 WLR 767
 

Studying law
contract law
contract consideration
criminal law
tort law
legal
legal research
contract terms
case law
statutes
law students
studying law
A level law
Law resources
study aids law
help with law
legal careers
law study help
Criminal law
offer and acceptance
law of negligence
unfair terms
sale of goods
frustration of contract