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

    the same day, another division had decided in Savage [1991] 2 All ER 220 that D need not himself have foreseen any risk of harm. Faced with two incompatible authorities, the Court in the instant case had to choose between them, and chose to follow Spratt.

  2. Law Making - Judicial Precedent.

    Poor Draftsmen ship (often newly qualified barristers) Dangerous dogs act - Dog epidemic - matter of days to pass statute 2. Assumptions clear to person who wrote it but not to anyone else. (person who wrote it are making assumptions that we would understand it)

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

    B will depend upon the position of the two courts in the hierarchical structure. The general formula is that a higher court is that a higher court will bind all lower courts; I feel it important for some knowledge of the hierarchical structure is therefore necessary to an understanding of the doctrine.

  2. The ultra vires doctrine

    to performing a function of public nature then if a hotel (for example) were to house someone in relation to whom a local authority held a public duty to provide accommodation, the hotel would become a public body under s.6 HRA, which would not (Lord Woolf)

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

    this is because decisions of the courts present in one legal system even though may be persuasive but do not bind on a court which is in another legal system. An individual judge in the NSW Supreme Court will be bound by the NSW court of appeal but the individual

  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.

  1. Judicial Precedent

    Since 1973, the highest court affecting the UK's legal system is the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and a decision made by this court is binding on all domestic courts. The ECJ is not bound by its past decisions. Next in the hierarchy is the House of Lords (HL)

  2. Judicial Precedent

    I feel that the efficiency of the system would be improved if the two parts of the speech were clearly defined. A binding precedent would be established by a legal rule formed in a position of the higher courts of the hierarchy, either the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords.

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