- Lord Denning Mr.Fenton Atkinson LJ and Sir Gordon Willmber gave an opinion.
- Adlam v Law society (1968) 1 ALL ER 17, (1968) 1 WLR 6, digest (Cont Vol C) 896, 215a.
- My opinion is that the Adlam v Law society is followed because it supports that ordinarily resident means ‘lawfully’. As lawfully was not read into the Commonwealth Immigration Act 1962 and 1968, it is often read into a statute. For example, Adlam v Law society.
- The ratio decidendi occurred in the judgement when Mr Manan deserted his ship. He continued to stay there which made him guilty of an offence under ss 4 and 4Aª of the 1962 act. Paragraph 8(2)(b) of Sch 1 to the 1962 Act was what made it clear to the judge that he should be treated as having refused admission.
- The obiter dicta in this case were when it mentions the income tax case. Its telling us that if this case were an income tax case, then he would be held to be an ordinarily resident here. But it’s not an income tax case. It’s an immigration case which therefore cannot be held as a lawfully resident here and that’s why he has been refused admission here.
- In this section, I will give a brief analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of Judicial Precedent:
Advantages:
Certainty
People know what the law is and how it is applied in their case because the courts
follow past decisions. It allows lawyers to let their clients know what the outcome will
be of their cases; it also lets them know what financial and other arrangements are
familiar with law. The House of Lords’ Practice Statement points out how important
certainty is.
Consistency and fairness in the law
Deciding similar cases in a similar way is seen as just and fair, just as it’s seen that in a
game, each team should have the same rule. If the law is to be credible, it must be
consistent.
Precision
All law cases are precise because the principles of law are set out in actual cases. It is
well demonstrated and slowly builds up through the different distinctions of facts that
come in each cases before the courts.
Flexibility
The House of Lords can use the Practice Statement to claim superiority to cases, so
therefore, there is room for the law to change. The ability to differentiate cases gives the
courts a reason to avoid past decisions and build up the law.
Time-saving
Precedent is another name for a useful time-saving device. Where a principle has been
well known, cases with similar facts are unlikely to go through the lengthy process of
litigation.
Disadvantages:
Rigidity
Bad decisions made in the past may continue and make law too rigid because of the fact
that the lower courts have to follow the higher courts and the Court of Appeal has to
follow it’s past decisions. This is so that only a few cases reach the House of Lords. The
law can only be changed if the parties have the courage, the determination and the
money to appeal their case.
Complexity
There are too many reported cases, almost half a million, and it is not easy to find the
relevant case law even with computerised databases. And also the judgement them-
selves, which are very lengthy and have no clear distinctions between the comments and
the reason for the decision. This doesn’t make it easy to identify the ratio decidendi,
which in Dodd’s case was very difficult to find the ratio in the decision of the House of
Lords.
Illogical distinctions
To differentiate to avoid past decisions can lead to ‘hair splitting’ so that some areas of
law can become very complex. The differences between some cases can be very small
and be unreasonable.
Slowness of growth
The judges know that some areas of law are not clear and are in need of improvement,
but they cannot do anything about it unless the case appears before the court to be
decided. This is a disapproval of the need for the Court of Appeal to follow its past
decisions, as only 50 cases reach the House of Lords every year. People may have to
wait long for a appropriate case to be appealed as far as the House of Lords.
