Legal System | Judicial Precedent

Doctrine: Introduction

18 March 2012 Download

based on Latin maxim stare decisis et non quieta mova (to stand by things decided)
meaning that a previous decision should stand
legal principles established in prior decisions set a precedent on specific issues
inferior courts are bound to follow the decisions of higher courts
essential aspect of English Common Law system and impacts on judicial interpretation of legislation

case must be decided in the same way as a prior case if material facts are sufficiently similar
proposition stated in one case is binding in a later case if it is a proposition of law, part of the ratio decidendi and decided in a court whose decisions are binding on the present court

precedent can be seen as a pragmatic measure, once a point of law has been argued and decided upon, no need to reassess in each instance
helps produce certainty and consistency
subtle difference: possible to have consistency without certainty but certainty requires consistency
certainty implies predicting an outcome, which is difficult to determine in cases as it relies on which facts a court finds to be proved by the evidence
certainty is further complicated by discretion given to judges at different stages, such as sentencing powers
absolute certainty is difficult to obtain
precedent helps to establish consistency
can result in problems, especially if the original decision is considered wrong or if attitude have developed since
ultimately Parliament has option to legislate in order to overcome any such problems but this is a time consuming and costly remedy

binding proposition must be one of law, not fact
if a point can be proved or inferred from the evidence then likely to be a matter of fact
not always straightforward to distinguish fact from a point of law
especially complicated in some negligence cases
Qualcast Ltd v Haynes [1959]
- C experienced moulder and was injured when he splashed molten metal on his foot
- D, his employer, had provided protective footwear but did not ensure workers wore it
- first instance judge decided he was bound by a previous decision to find that D was negligent
- House of Lords decided whether an employer who did not ensure that workers used protective clothing was negligent was a question of fact in each case not a proposition of law
- held D was not negligent as the risk was obvious, injury was unlikely to be serious and C was very experienced