This is the third summary that you will have to type in 1 st year. This will save you a lot of time as this contains all the cases and all the definitions that you will need to include in your assignment.
Judicial precedent it’s also called the common law.
Parliament is the main source of our law and we’ve seen briefly that the role of the judge is
to apply the law. Judicial Presiden refers to the past decisions of the judges creating law for
the future judges to follow. This source of law is also known as case law or common law or
the doctrine of precedent. It is a major source of law, both historically and today. In english
legal system, the doctrine of precedent means that the courts must follow decisions of the
courts and must follow decisions of the courts above. Also appeal courts will usually follow
their own previous decisions. Judicial precedent is the past decisions of judges for future
judges to follow.
There are 4 key principles:
The first one is stare decisis:
The system is based on the latin maxim (a maxim is a sayin): stare decisis which means : let
the decisions stand/stand by what has been decided. Which means a judge makes a
decision in a case other judges should stand by it and essentially follow it- to no ‘unsettle the
established’. Our system of precedent is based on the doctrine that supports the idea of
fairness and provides certainty in the law. Therefore points have been decided in previous
similar cases must be followed (applied in similar cases). This makes the system consistent,
fair and reliable.
The maxim of states decisis embraces two principles:
● Like cases should be treated alike :
If a case is very similar to one that’s already been decided, the judge will follow the decision
reached in the earlier case. Just like Daniels v White followed Donoghue v Stevenson
● Higher courts bind lower courts
Precedent follows a strict hierarchy system that lower courts. The higher courts have some
flexibility as to whether they are obliged to follow their own past decisions.
The second principle is law reports:
In 1865, the incorporated council of law reporting was set up. These reports are still
published and are called Law Reports. One of the most widely known series of reports which
are published by private companies. Additionally, electronic aw reporting is now gaining
popularity because of its incredible speed accuracy. LEIX is one system. It contains the facts
of the case and a summary of the decision. The judges also rite a decision explaining the
reasoning used and the principles of the law he/she has used to come to that decision. This
decision. This decision is known as a jugement and is usually at the end of the report.The
decisions of the judges at the close of a case can be several speeches depending on the
number of judges who hear a case. There will be only one judge and, accordingly, one
decision in first instance trials. But at least two and normally three judges are present in the
appeal courts. Judgments may be prolonged depending on the situation, particularly if the
point of law is significant or complicated. The decision of a single judge can also be
considered as the 'leading judgement,' because it reflects the authority that makes the case.
, Many academic law libritiesz will have shelves of law reports. Barristers chambers will have
access to copies in the Inns’ libraries but many practitioners use online versions now.In a
judgement, the judge normally summarises the facts of the case, revises the advocates'
points and then outlines the rules of the law he uses to reach a verdict.
The third principle is ratio decidendi:
The laws and factors that contributed to a decision of the judge are known as the ratio
decidendi (reasons for the decision). It is the ratio that is the most critical element of the
judgement, since it gives future judges a precedent.
Some examples of ratio decidendi forming precedent are:
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)
Mrs Donoghue went to a cafe with a friend. The friend brought her a bottle of
ginger beer and an ice cream. The ginger beer came in an opaque bottle so that
the contents could not be seen. Mrs Donoghue poured half the contents of the
bottle over her ice cream and also drank some from the bottle. After eating part of
the ice cream, she then poured the remaining contents of the bottle over the ice
cream and a decomposed snail emerged from the bottle. Mrs Donoghue suffered
personal injury as a result. She commenced a claim against the manufacturer of the
ginger beer.
Outcome: the manufacturer owns a duty of core to it’s consumers.
Daniels v White (1938)
Mr. Daniel purchased some beer and a bottle of lemonade for himself and his
spouse. He mixed the two drinks together and drank it. They both felt a burning sensation in
their mouth and throat and upon examination it was found that the lemonade was
contaminated with carbolic acid that was used in the lemonade plant to clean bottles.
The outcome is guilty.
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills
Grant had an allergic reaction to a pair of woollen underpants made by the defendant. The
wool they used to make them had been treated with a substance that made his skin itch
unbearably.
Outcome is guilty.
The fourth key principle is obiter dicta:
The other comments that the judges state in the judgement are known as the obiter dicta
(other things said) and whilst the obiter may be useful or interesting it does not form
precedent that judges have to follow. All these other comments in the judgment that helped
explain the decision. This out the comments don’t have to be featured.A decision of the
judge shall include not only ratio points, but also obiter points, which comprise the majority of
judges. The judges are not clear, regrettably, which part of the verdict is ratio and which part
is obiter. Barristers and other judges must figure out this by hearing the full sentence. The
Obiter points of the judgements are generally the hypothesis and rationale of the fact that in
the decision, the judge often chooses not to mention it. In subsequent cases, the obiter
points will also become a guideline for judges to follow.
Howe -
In R v Howe, two appellants, Howe and Bannister, participated with others in torturing
a man who was then strangled to death by one of the others. These events were
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller Emanuela25. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $9.70. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
