Summary Judicial Precedent (full notes for essay with latest updates)
155 keer bekeken 0 keer verkocht
Vak
Legal System and Method (LA1031)
Instelling
UOL
Boek
Learning Legal Rules
Its a complete notes for judicial precedent structured in way easily understandable and use as guidance for essays. Its included recent case and update. All you need to know about Judicial Precedent is in one complete note.
Statutory Interpretation (full notes for essay with latest updates)
Do Judge Make Law? Judicial Law Making (full notes for essay with latest updates)
Lectures Methods & Techniques of Legal Research summarized and explained
Alles voor dit studieboek
(4)
Geschreven voor
UOL
Legal System and Method (LA1031)
Alle documenten voor dit vak (3)
Verkoper
Volgen
lawsimple
Ontvangen beoordelingen
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
JUDICIAL PRECEDENT
Intro
Judicial Precedent refers to past decision of judges that forms a source of law for future judges to follow.
It is based on the maxim of “stare decisis” means to stand by what was decided, in other words, cases
with similar facts should be treated the same way as this provide for certainty. Most of law of tort and
contract and important crime such as murder and common assault are a creation of judge and nor
Parliament. For decision to remain binding, the earlier case should contain a statement of law which forms
part of the ratio decidendi (refers to the legal reasoning for the decision in a case and is binding upon on
future cases), it was decided by a superior court or a court whose decisions are binding upon the court
dealing with the latter case., and it does not contain any significant difference in the material facts as
compared to the latter case. Not all facts in a case will be relevant to the decision and the judge will
generally make fairly clear which facts are relevant. For example, in Donoghue v Stevenson court dealt
with the question of whether a manufacturer of a food product could be liable for causing injury to the
ultimate consumer of the product as a result of negligent manufacture. In this case Mrs Steveson was
made ill as a result of consuming ginger beer poured from a brown bottle which contained a dead snail.
The fact that the bottle was brown and thus the content could not be examined was a material fact while
the fact that the content of the bottle was ginger beer was not material. The bottle could have contained
lemonade or any other drink. The point was that the contents could not be examined. The term of obiter
dicta refers to any part of a judgement not forming the ratio decidendi, including dissenting judgement
and hypothetical scenarios. While non-binding, obiter dicta may form persuasive precedent in later cases.
Generally, the doctrine of judicial precedent emphasizes on certainty, stability and accumulated wisdom
from the past. Ultimately, for doctrine to operate efficiently, there must be established hierarchy of
courts and accurate law reporting.
In the English common law system, the doctrine of binding precedent means that a judge in a lower court
must apply a decision made in a similar case in a higher court or, indeed, in a court at the same level.
These are the concept horizontal and vertical precedent.
HOL
The vertical precedent in the Supreme Court, generally, the Supreme Court is bound to follow the decision
of the European Court of Justice as the UK is a member of the European Union. In terms of the courts
below the Supreme Court, the doctrine of precedent asserts that decisions of the Supreme Court is
binding upon all the courts below it.
The horizontal precedent of the House of Lords, the House of Lords (now know as the Supreme Court
pursuant to the Constitutional Reform Act 2005) hears appeal on civil and criminal matters based on great
public importance. Initially, the House of Lords was bound by its own previous decisions (self-binding) as
seen in the case of London Transways Co. Ltd v London County Council (1898) where Lord Halsbury
acknowledged that although case if individual hardship may result from the House of Lords being bound
by its own decision, the need for clear principle over-rides the hardship cause in individual. Thus, it is
apparent that the conventional doctrine of judicial precedent was rigid and the main aim is to provide for
certainty, predictability and stability of the law even at the expense of not providing justice to an
individual.
In 1966, Lord Gardiner proposed to modify the rigid precedents which may lead to injustice and all judges
in the House of Lords joined together to issue a Practice Statement allowing the House of Lords to depart
from its own previous decision if it appears right to do so as it was recognised that too rigid an adherence
to precedent may lead to injustice in a particular case and also limit the development of law. Theodore
Benditt opined that the Practice Statement may be regarded as a legislative or revolutionary modification
of the then existing rule of precedent. Despite that, the House of Lords recognizes the danger of flexibility,
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper lawsimple. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €4,48. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
