• 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...

Introduction

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.

Middle

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.

Conclusion

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 doctrine of Precedent.

    6. Inferior courts (Crown Court, County Court, Magistrates' Court) do not create precedents and must follow decisions of all the above courts. THE HOUSE OF LORDS AND THE PRACTICE STATEMENT THE NEED FOE THE PRACTICE STATEMENT 1. From the middle of the 19th century the House of Lords generally regarded themselves as bound by their own past decisions (Beamish

  2. Law Making - Judicial Precedent.

    What was the common law before the statute was passed? 2. Why was the common law inadequate? 3. What was the intended remedy to the mischief? E.g. 1981 Criminal Attempts Act 1. Cannot attempt the impossible 2. People to were trying to attempt the impossible 3.

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

    be used, and if in the natural use of the land there had been any accumulation of water, which by the operation of the laws of nature had passed off into the land occupied by the plaintiff, the plaintiff could not have complained.

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

    An example of case of this would be Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partner [1963] 2 ALL ER 575. Not all courts will be bound by all earlier decisions on similar facts, whether or not a judge in case A is bound by the decision of case

  1. The ultra vires doctrine

    on what constituted a public function, to find private body's susceptible to judicial review. Giving such a broad scope to judicial review, might open the floodgates to hundreds of applicants seeking remedies after unsuccessful appeals via private law, it may have even been feared that the private law may be

  2. Judicial Precedent

    The House also said obiter dicta that duress would not be available as a defense to a charge of attempted murder. Then, in R v Gotts, where the charge was that of attempted murder, the Court of Appeal looked at the obiter dicta of Howe, and decided t follow it.

  1. Judicial Precedent

    For example, Gomez followed the precedent held in Morris over appropriation in theft. The legal rule may also have been formed in the same level of court, as in the case of Regina v. Mazo (1997) and Regina v. Hinks (1998), where there were conflicting ratios made within the Court of Appeal over consent and appropriation.

  2. The problem with precedent.

    The romantic view is that the earliest judicial decisions were made by the `wandering justices' of the 13th century, who travelled the land at the King's behest, applying and unifying the existing law of the land. The pragmatic view is that the English common law results from an attempt by

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