The doctrine of judicial precedent is based on stare decisis. That is the standing by of previous decisions. In order for the doctrine of judicial precedent to work, it is necessary to be able to determine what a point of law is. In the course of delivering a judgment, the judge will set out their reasons for reaching a decision.
Examine legal reasoning Judicial Precedent Judicial precedent: A judgment of a court of law cited as an authority for deciding a similar Judiciary precedents of facts; a case which serves as authority for the legal principle embodied in its decision.
The common law has developed by broadening down from precedent to precedent. A judicial precedent is a decision of the court used as a source for future decision making.
This is known as stare decisis to stand upon decisions and by which precedents are authoritative and binding and must be followed.
In giving judgment in a case, the judge will set out the facts of the case, state the law applicable to the facts and then provide his or her decision.
It is only the ratio decidendi the legal reasoning or ground for the judicial decision which is binding on later courts under the system of judicial precedent. Any observation made by the judge on a legal question suggested by the case before him or her but not arising in such Judiciary precedents manner as requiring a decision is known as obiter dictum a saying by the way.
There may several reasons for a decision provided by the judge in any given judgment and one must not assume that a reason can be regarded as 'obiter' because some other 'ratio' has been provided.
Thus, it is not always easy to distinguish ratio decidendi from obiter dictum when evaluating the effects of a particular decision. A single decision of a superior court is absolutely binding on subsequent inferior courts.
However, certain of the superior courts regard themselves as bound by their own decisions whilst others do not: Decisions of the House of Lords bind all other courts but the House does not regard itself as strictly bound by its previous decisions, for example, in Murphy v Brentwood District Council the House elected to overrule its earlier decision in Anns v London Borough of Merton on the issue of a local authority's liability in negligence to future purchasers of property.
The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, holds itself bound by its previous decisions: Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd but in that case also identified three exceptional cases where it would disregard its own previous decision.
These are i where two Court of Appeal decisions conflict; ii if the decision although not expressly overruled conflicts with a later decision of the House of Lords; and iii if the earlier decision was given per incuriam through want of care however it cannot ignore a decision of the House of Lords on the same basis.
Divisional courts of the High Court have adopted the rule laid down in Young's case although judges sitting at first instance are not bound to follow the decisions of other High Court judges although they tend to do so for the sake of certainty Judicial precedent is an important source of English law as an original precedent is one which creates and applies a new rule.
However, the later decisions, especially of the higher courts, can have a number of effects upon precedents. In particular, they may be:Judges must look to a judicial precedent to assure stare decisis is upheld in decision making.
Judicial precedents are subject to a rule of verticality. This rule gives preference to different courts in a hierarchy, ranging from the highest supreme court to intermediate appellate courts and the lowest trial courts.
Judicial precedent is judge made law – when judges make their decisions about a case and give the reasons for their decision in open court. It is a ‘common law’ system separate from law made by parliament and is a distinct feature of . A judicial precedent is a decision of the court used as a source for future decision making.
This is known as stare decisis (to stand upon decisions) and by which precedents are authoritative and binding and must be followed. A judicial precedent is authoritative and binding, meaning that once a decision has been made in court, future court cases must rely on this precedent when ruling.
Judicial precedent is a feature of common law legal systems, which develop laws through judicial practices rather than purely legislative processes or executive regulations. Judicial precedent is a legal case law establishing a principle or rule that a court or other judicial body may apply while deciding subsequent cases involving similar issues or facts.
Hamangiu et al, 10) Even if not acknowledged in Romanian legal system, judicial precedent is frequently present in judicial activity in both European Court of Human Rights and European Union Court of Justice decisions, which, according to article 11 and 20 in Romanian Constitution are part of the national law along with the treaties signed by Romania and national courts' decisions.