• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

What is the doctrine of precedent

Extracts from this document...


What is the doctrine of precedent? The doctrine of precedent is a form of reasoning and decision-making formed by case law. If a higher court has made a significant legal point in one case, it would be considered as binding in later courts. In order to understand this doctrine more clearly, it would be necessary to examine the hierarchy of the English Courts. The House of Lords holds the highest position, any decision made by them, would be binding to lower courts which filter down to the Court of Appeal, to the Crown Courts and County Courts. This is otherwise recognised as the doctrine of stare decisis, which means standing by what has been decided. This doctrine is a fundamental principle of English Law. The use of precedent is vital to the decision making process of the courts. ...read more.


This is evident in the earlier given example of Pickstone v. Freemans over "equal pay" and also in the case of Finnegan v, Clowney Youth Training Programme Ltd [1990] 2 All ER 546 on the retirement age for women under the Sex Discrimination Act 1976. Further to the point of the European Court of Justice, all English courts are required to be consistent with the jurisdiction laid down from U.K.'s membership to the E.U. particularly in relation to the Human Rights Act 1998. A persuasive precedent is different to a binding precedent in that the lower courts are unable to bind the higher courts to their decision, but can only be persuasive. As in the Mandla v. Dowell Lee case, we can identify how the House of Lords decision was swayed by the decision made in the Court of Appeal level in Australia. ...read more.


However, in attempt to overturn this principle, Lord Denning M.R. tried to make a House of Lords decision per incuriam. A previous court ruling can be labelled as per incuriam, i.e. the decision oversaw a number of significant material facts before submitting a legal rule. This attempt was made and condemned later in the House of Lords in Broome v. Cassell [1972] 2 Qb 354. Lord Denning M.R. tried to ignore the ratio in Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129 with the reasoning that there was a significant oversight made by the Law Lords. When this case reached the House of Lords, Lord Hailsham stated, "In the hierarchical system of courts which exists in this country, it is necessary for each lower tier, including the Court of Appeal, to accept loyally the decisions of the higher tiers". This affirms the doctrine of precedent that lower courts cannot overturn the precedent set out in higher courts. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree English Legal System section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related University Degree English Legal System essays

  1. 'The scope of the flexibility of the doctrine of binding precedent has two sources; ...

    and take into account how they differ and how they help or hinder the development of the law.

  2. Law Making - Judicial Precedent.

    However, judicial precedent only creates law when someone commits an act which can then be considered buy the court. The law can only develop when someone is caught who has actually committed the necessary conduct. 5. Judicial precedent creates law retrospectively For a case to pass through the legal system right to the HOL can take several years.

  1. Judicial Precedent

    past to argue that the Court of Appeal should not be bound by the House of Lords. Lord Denning refused to follow earlier House of Lords decisions in Broome v Cassell (1971) and again in the case of Miliangos v George Frank (1976).

  2. The ultra vires doctrine

    was not in that respect a public authority by virtue of s.6 (5). Lord Nicholls elaborated a policy in favour of a interpretation of function of a public nature: the extent to which the body: Is publicly funded in carrying out the relevant function, or is exercising statutory powers, or

  1. The doctrine of Precedent.

    is the same legal point in the case now being decided; * The facts of the present case are sufficiently similar to the previous case; and * The earlier decision was made by the court above the present court in the hierarchy, or by a court at the same level

  2. Where judges do not follow precedent (or where they distinguish binding cases on dubious ...

    Lord Devlin felt that the ratio of a judgement was the principle that the judge intended to offer as a source of precedent - he was clearly prepared to contemplate yet another guessing game - while Lord Halsbury suggested in Quinn v Leatham [1901] AC 495 that the ratio was authoritative only on its own facts.

  1. Common Law, the Doctrine of Precedent and Statutory Interpretation in Australia

    precedent should be a higher court in the same legal system or hierarchy of courts the case is being presented before. This simply means that the doctrine of precedent is restricted by the legal system the court deciding the case is in.

  2. Discuss the operation of the doctrine of precedent in the Australian courts

    > Common law is first made by a court choosing some facts as material and generalizing those facts to make a principle. Because each process is a choice a later court could argue that other facts were equally relevant or other levels of generalization taken.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work