• 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. Law Making - Judicial Precedent.

    E.g. the golden rule may look at the general problem of prostitution. The mischief rule might look at the more specific problem of curb crawling To use the mischief rule the courts use guidance from HEYDONS CASE 1584 to solve the problem the judge must ask 3 questions: - 1.

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

    Prior to this decision the law on this point was unclear, but the Lords' decision made new law to fill the gap. Airedale HA v Bland [1993] 1 All ER 821, HL A young man seriously injured in the Hillsborough disaster was being kept alive only by extensive medical care

  1. Judicial Precedent

    extent ensure that the most important decisions are made by the most experienced judges. However, the system is very ridged, and very often a precedent is in place that is completely out of date and therefore, not really of any use in today's society.

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

    But the plaintiff provided the defendant with the sample, granted full freedom to inspect them but nothing was mentioned about the age. Here the court applied the doctrine of precedent that there arises no legal obligation to conceal facts to the other party unless avoiding such concealment would lead to fraudulent contract.

  1. The ultra vires doctrine

    I would accept that those who agree to be bound by the rules of the racing have no effective alternative to doing so if they want to take part in racing in this country... the powers which (like the appellant)

  2. The problem with precedent.

    the Norman French nobility to apply its standards of law in a conquered country, while giving an illusion of continuity. Whether the legal developments of the medieval period followed from a process of approving established legal custom, or from the imposition of a foreign jurisprudence, neither represent an answer to the question where the foundational principles come from.

  1. Judicial Precedent

    Commonwealth countries such as Canada, and Australia * obiter dicta, particularly where the comment was made in a House of Lords decision. This was seen in the case of R v Howe where the House of Lords ruled ratio decidendi that duress was not available as a defense to murder.

  2. The doctrine of Precedent.

    the judges in the case merely declared what the law had always been, although this was the first time it had had to be decided. Supporters of this theory believed that judges did not create new law when making a decision; the merely declared what the law had always been.

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