By reference to case law examples explain the concepts of ratio decedendi and obiter dicta to the doctrine of judicial precedent.
By reference to case law examples explain the concepts of "ratio decedendi" and "obiter dicta" to the doctrine of judicial precedent. In a judge's decision there are several elements. There will always be material of facts found and indirect statements of the principle of law and finally the decision based on these two. Ratio Decidendi is Latin for 'reason for deciding'; it may be understood as the statement of the law applied in deciding the legal problem raised by the concrete facts of the case.1 Judgements are made on a Stare Decisis basis, where cases are treated alike but if a judge considers that the facts of a case are sufficiently different from a previous case then he may refuse to follow that decision.2 The difficulty in the search for the ratio becomes acute when more than one judgment is promulgated3. An example is the case of Kay v. Lambeth LBC, on which a panel of seven of their Lordships sat, and from whose opinions emerged a number of competing ratios, some made express by their Lordships and others implicit in the decision.4 As well as this sometimes it is hardly ever expressly.5 As an example, the Ratio Decidendi in Donoghue v. Stevenson6 would be that a person owes a duty of care to those who he can reasonably foresee will be affected by his actions7. Ratio Decidendi also involves the holding of a particular case, thereby allowing future cases to build
The Role of Ratio Decidendi in Judicial Precedent.
The Role of Ratio Decidendi in Judicial Precedent Ratio decidendi plays a very important role in judicial precedent as it is the legal principle underlying the decision in a particular case. Therefore, it creates the precedent for future cases and is considered the most important part of a judge's speech. Judicial precedent, which is case law, has been and still is a major source of law in the English system. The decisions from previous cases create law for future judges to follow. The English law system is based on the Latin principle of stare decisis, which means 'stand by what has been decided and do not unsettle the established,' i.e. follow the common law, don't try to change it. There are different types of precedent; original, binding and persuasive. Original precedent is a point of law where a new case that hasn't been decided on in the past. In these cases the judge would look at cases that appear closest, the judge would use the case to reason by analogy. A case where the judge had to reason by analogy was in 1995, the case was Hunter and others V Canary Wharf Ltd. The case was about a 250m high tower that Hunter said caused interference with television reception. A decision needed to be made as to whether the tower did cause problems, but because this was an unusual case the judge didn't have a directly related ratio decidendi to refer to and so he found a case
What is Judicial Precedence & Ratio Decidendi?Critically Evaluate the System of Judicial Precedence.
What is Judicial Precedence & Ratio Decidendi? Critically Evaluate the System of Judicial Precedence. In England, we operate a system where there are two types of law, the first is statute law. This is where parliament has passed an act and has made a written law that must be adhered to. This is inline with the principle of parliamentary supremacy. The second is common law and to understand what judicial precedence and ratio decidendi are, we must study this area of the legal system and it is this system that is the predominant system of law in England. Common law is where judges decide cases by looking at previous decisions that are sufficiently similar and following the decision in that case, this is called stare rationibus decidendi, usually referred to as stare decisis, which means 'Let the decision stand'. What it means is that if a court of equal or higher standing makes a decision then all lower courts are bound by that decision. A precedent in law is very much the same as it is in layman's terms, it means when a case is decided on the basis of an earlier court, it is called a precedent. In law, the 'decision' is not only that x won and y lost but it is also the reasoning behind it. This reasoning, which is referred to as the ratio decidendi, is how the judge relates the material facts to the proposition of law. The material facts of a case are the facts that were
'The scope of the flexibility of the doctrine of binding precedent has two sources; the flexibility of the basic concepts of ratio and dictum and the limited degree of self-bindingess in the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the House Of Lords.' Cr...
'The scope of the flexibility of the doctrine of binding precedent has two sources; the flexibility of the basic concepts of ratio and dictum and the limited degree of self-bindingess in the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the House Of Lords.' Critically discuss this comment, using decided cases to support your discussion. The aim of this essay is to critically discuss the flexibility of binding precedent. The following areas I will focus onto are ratio decidendi and obiter dicta/dictum, as these aspects of the court show the flexibility and inflexibility of binding precendent. I will also concentrate on the hierarchy structure. To fully answer this question, we need to understand the meaning of doctrine of precedent in-depth. To break down the term doctrine of binding precedent, precedent means, 'a judgement or decision of a court, normally recorded in a law report in a law report used as an authority for reaching the same decision in subsequent cases.'1 The doctrine of binding precedent, states lower courts are bound to apply the legal principle set by superior court in earlier cases, for example the high court must follow decisions of the court of appeal, which must follow decisions of the House of Lords. The decisions of the House of the Lords (the highest court in the land) are binding on all the other courts trying similar cases. Basically a similar case
Prepare a short casenote, summarising the key facts, issues and the ratio decidendi of the case at both appellate levels, alon
Prepare a short casenote, summarising the key facts, issues and the ratio decidendi of the case at both appellate levels, along the lines you developed in the first Legal Method tutorial. Mandla v Dowell Lee [1982] 3 WLR 932 - Court of Appeal Facts : - Sikh father applied for his son to apply to attend a multiracial private school - Application refused by headmaster - Reasoning was turban worn by son not part of the school uniform code - Father brought action against the school for racial discrimination under Race Relations Act 1976. Issues : - Whether there was discrimination under section 1(1)(b) of the Race Relations Act 1976 by determination of a "racial group" under section 3(1). Ratio Decidendi : - Sikhs are not considered as a "racial group" under section 3(1) of the Act, as they are only distinguishable by their religion and culture and not by any racial characteristics ("ethnic origins") in order to be liable to be discriminated against under section 1 (1)(b) of the Race Relations Act 1976. Mandla v Dowell Lee [1983] 2 WLR 620 - House of Lords Facts : - Sikh father applied for his son to apply to attend a multiracial private school - Application refused by headmaster - Reasoning was turban worn by son not part of the school uniform code - Father brought action against the school for racial discrimination under Race Relations Act 1976. Issues : - Whether
Judicial Precedent
Judicial precedent The doctrine of judicial precedent is based on the principle of stare decisis, meaning 'to stand by what has been decided'. Under this doctrine, legal decisions made by judges in higher courts set a precedent for judges in equal or lower courts to follow. For the system to operate successfully, three things are required: . a ratio decidendi 2. an accurate record of legal proceedings, otherwise known as law reports 3. a hierarchy of courts Ratio decidendi Ratio decidendi, meaning 'the reason for deciding', is the legal principle laid down in each case. It is given by the judge at the end of a case as the explanation of his/her decision. It is the ratio decidendi which must be followed in future cases of similar fact, this is what is meant by a binding precedent. For example, in R v Howe (1987) the defendant was found to be guilty of murder as his defence of duress which he had pleaded had been found unsubstantial by the House of Lords in a previous case of similar fact. However, judges do not always make it clear what the ratio decidendi of their decision is, judgements are not set out with clear headings. Therefore it is up to the person reading the judgement to determine what exactly the ratio decidendi is. Also in the appeal courts, the decision is made by more than one judge. Even if all the judges reach the same decision they may have arrived at
Describe how the doctrine of precedent operates in English law. Illustrate your answer with cases.
Describe how the doctrine of precedent operates in English law. Illustrate your answer with cases. The doctrine of judicial precedent is based upon stare decisis meaning to stand upon previous decisions. Under this doctrine legal decisions made by judges in the higher courts set a precedent, and have to be followed in future case with similar facts by judges in lower courts. Treating all cases alike ensures equal treatment and keeps the law consistent. Judges apply law to the facts of the case and will then make a decision based on the facts of the case. The legal reason for a judge's decision is called a ratio decidendi, he will state the ratio decidendi in his final judgement. This ratio forms a binding precedent, which will have to be followed in future cases of similar facts. For example, the ratio decidendi of the Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) case was, a manufacturer owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumer when putting up their product. Judges will not only state the ratio decidendi in their final judgement, they may also speculate what the outcome of the case would have been if the facts were slightly different. These comments are called obiter dicta (comments made 'by the way'). An example of this is Rondell v Worsley (1969), in this case a barrister was being sued for negligence. The ratio decidendi of this case was that a barrister is immune from being sued
Briefly explain what is meant by the doctrine of judicial precedent.
Briefly explain what is meant by the doctrine of judicial precedent. (10 Marks) Judicial precedent refers to the sources of law where past decisions made by judges create law for future judges to follow. The English system of precedent is based on stare decisis, which translated from Latin loosely means "To stand by what has been decided". Stare decisis provides fairness and certainty in the law. It is divided into two parts: ratio decidendi and obiter dicta. Ratio decidendi are the principles of law that a judge has used to come to the decision at the end of a case, which is outlined in his speech. Ratio decidendi loosely means "Any rule expressed or implied by the judge as a necessary step in reaching his conclusion". Obiter dicta refers to "the other things said" by the judges and does not have to be followed by future judges. An example of this may include what the judge's decision would have been if the facts were different but does not have to followed as it is not binding precedent. It is often difficult to distinguish between ratio decidendi and obiter dicta as the judgement is usually in a continuous form, without any headings specifying what is ratio decidendi and what is not. Original precedent is a new legal rule established through a case decision. Binding precedent must be followed by the court and persuasive precedent does not have to be followed but can be
Describe the essential features of the doctine of judicial precedent.
Describe the essential features of the doctine of judicial precedent Under William the Conqueror, a centralised government developed. As a result of this 1066 government, itinerant judges were used in important cases in major towns. They would travel to the town of the case to hear it. Over time they were used more frequently and reported back to London to discuss and record cases. This resulted in judges being able to take into account other judges previous decisions on cases similar to their own. It also helped the government create common law for the whole land. For judges to take into account and follow past decisions, it is imperative that accurate records are held for judges to access. Although the earliest records recorded date back to 1275, they were brief and mostly in French. However this does show that even 730 years ago, the importance of recording cases was apparent even if they did lack detail. In 1865 the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting was set up, controlled by the individual courts themselves. This insured that cases were recorded frequently and accurately, especially the judgements which were recorded word for word. This aloud judges to follow precedent with much greater ease. Case reports are held in the All England Series (ALL ER) and Weekly Law Reports (WLR). LEXIS, the law database for retrieval of case details is also an important resource as it
Laws Made By The Courts.
Laws Made By The Courts "Case law, judge-made law or common law can be defined as a statement of the law made by the courts in deciding a case. This then establishes a precedent and will be relevant for future similar disputes depending on the status of the court."1 The Doctrine Of Binding Precedent "The doctrine of binding precedent provides that similar cases should be decided in a similar manner. The Latin maxim for this is 'stare decisis' which means 'the decision stays'.2 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. Decisions made within the Common Law world can only act as an aid to the reasoning and decision-making of higher courts in the U.K. The doctrine of judicial precedent is at the heart of the common law system of rights and duties. The courts are bound (within prescribed limits) by prior decisions of superior courts. Adherence to precedent helps achieve two objects of the legal order. Firstly it contributes to the maintenance of a regime of stable laws. This stability gives predicability to the law and affords a degree of security for individual rights. Secondly it ensures that
