Legal Precedent Uk Definition

Although lower courts are theoretically bound by the precedents of higher courts, in practice a judge may believe that justice requires an outcome that deviates from precedents and can distinguish the facts of the individual case on the basis of reasons not included in the binding precedent. On appeal, the Court of Appeal can either adopt the new ground or set it aside on the basis of precedent. On the other hand, if the losing party does not appeal (usually because of the cost of the appeal), the lower court`s decision may remain in force, at least for individual parties. In contrast, civil law systems follow a legal positivism in which previous decisions generally do not have the binding effect and set a precedent they have in common law decision-making; A notable exception is judicial review by constitutional courts. Courts may consider decisions of other courts that have equivalent authority in the legal system. For example, a county appeals court may review a decision of another county`s appellate court. Courts may choose to obey the precedents of international courts, but this is not an application of the doctrine of stare decisis, as foreign decisions are not binding. Rather, a foreign judgment that is obeyed on the basis of the validity of its reasoning is called a persuasive authority – indicating that its effect is limited to the persuasive nature of the reasons it provides. By the end of the eighteenth century, the common law courts had taken over most of the activities of their non-royal competitors, although there was still internal competition between the various common law courts themselves. During the nineteenth century, legal reform movements in England and the United States put an end to this situation by merging the various common law courts into a unified judicial system with a formal hierarchical structure. This, coupled with the advent of reliable private stenographers, made it practical to adhere to the doctrine of stare decisis and rapidly developed the practice of binding judges to the decisions of courts of superior or equal status in their jurisdiction. [29] A precedent is a principle or rule established in a previous case that is either binding or persuasive, without the courts referring to the courts of a court or other court when deciding subsequent cases involving similar questions or facts. [1] [2] [3] Common law systems place great importance on deciding cases according to consistent rules of principle so that similar facts lead to similar and predictable results, and adherence to precedent is the mechanism by which this objective is achieved.

The principle that judges are bound by precedent is known as stare decisis (a Latin phrase with the literal meaning of «to stand in the things that have been decided»). The common law precedent is a third type of law, equal to statutory law (i.e. laws and codes promulgated by legislative bodies) and subordinate laws (i.e. regulations issued by law enforcement agencies in the form of delegated laws) – in British parlance – or regulatory law (in American parlance). In general, a legal precedent is said: originalism is an approach to interpreting a legal text in which the intention of the original authors has a dominant weight (at least the intention as derived by a modern judge). In contrast, a non-originalist examines other indications of meaning, including the current meaning of words, the pattern and trend of other judicial decisions, the changing context and improvement of scientific understanding, observation of practical results and «what works,» contemporary judicial norms, and stare decisis. Both are designed to interpret the text, not to change it – interpretation is the process of dissolving ambiguity and choosing among possible meanings, not changing the text. Legal precedent means a judgment or decision of a court cited as an example or analogy in a subsequent dispute to justify the decision of a similar case or point of law in the same way. Common law and equity, as found in the English and American legal systems, rely heavily on the set of established precedents, although the court was theoretically free of precedent in the initial development of equity. At the end of the 19th century, the principle of stare decisis (Latin: «to leave the decision standing») took hold in England. In the United States, the precedent principle is strong, although higher courts — particularly the U.S. Supreme Court — can review and overturn precedents.

The different roles of jurisprudence in civil law and common law traditions result in differences in the way courts make decisions. Common law courts typically explain in detail the legal basis for their decisions, with citations from previous relevant legislation and judgments, and often an exegesis of broader legal principles. These are called ratio decidendi and constitute a precedent that binds other courts; Other analyses which are not strictly necessary to rule on the present case are called obiter dicta, which have persuasive powers but are not technically binding. In contrast, decisions in civil courts are generally very short,[citation required], concern only laws,[citation required], not very analytical,[citation required] and are based on facts. [23] The reason for this difference is that these civil courts apply legislative positivism – a form of legal positivism – which asserts that legislation is the only valid source of law because it has been democratically voted; It is therefore not for the judiciary to create laws, but to interpret and apply laws, and its decisions must therefore take this into account. Precedents are usually set by a series of decisions. Sometimes a single decision can set a precedent. For example, a single interpretation of the law by a state`s highest court is generally considered to be initially part of the law. When different members of a multi-judge tribunal express different opinions, the reasoning may be different; Only the ratio decidendi of the majority becomes a binding precedent. For example, if a 12-member tribunal divides 5-2-3-2 into four different opinions on several different topics, each reasoning may require seven votes on each particular issue, and majorities of seven judges may vary from subject to subject.

All can be cited as persuasive (although, of course, opinions that agree on the majority result are more persuasive than dissenting opinions). If the facts or problems of a case differ from those of a previous case, the previous case cannot set a precedent. In Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc., the Supreme Court reiterated that «[t]he issues that merely lie in the record have not been brought to the attention of the court or decided, not as .. Previous[]. Accordingly, an earlier decision serves only as a precedent for matters that the Tribunal expressly considered in its decision in light of the particular facts. The precedent on an issue is the set of principles promulgated by the court that a court should take into account when interpreting the law. When a precedent establishes an important legal principle or constitutes new or amended law on a particular issue, that precedent is often referred to as a landmark decision. The mixed systems of the Nordic countries are sometimes considered a branch of civil law, but they are sometimes considered distinct from the civil law tradition. In Sweden, for example, jurisdiction may play a more important role than in some continental civil justice systems.