Do You Agree with the View Expressed in Lord Gardiner’s Practice Statement of 1966 That the English Doctrine of Binding Precedent “Is an Indispensable Foundation on Which to Decide What Is the Law?
In this question I will be defining what the Binding Precedent is and its main principles that are applied in judicial precedent. I will look at the structure of the court system and whether in this structure the courts are being bound by the decision of others higher courts. I will reflect at how far the binding precedent goes to ensure the existence of both certainty and flexibility in common law. I will talk about the advantages and disadvantages that contribute to the doctrine of binding precedent including examples of previous cases. Finally I will come to a conclusion if I agree overall with Gardiner’s practice statement of 1966.
Doctrine of Precedent is a legal term to describe the practice where decisions established in previous Court rulings are legally binding on future cases which have similar circumstances and facts and must be followed. Rulings issued from a Court are binding on that level of Court and lower Courts as the court system follows a hierarchy. The binding force of the precedent depends on the hierarchy of courts, some courts have greater authority than others, a decision made by a court in the superior court will be binding on all other courts, this is the principle behind the doctrine The doctrine of precedent is in the common law system of rights and duties. The courts are bound, within prescribed limits, by prior decisions of superior courts.
A binding precedent is to be followed whether it is in sympathy with the decision or not. Each court has to decide for itself whether there is a precedent binding in the cases given and covering the cases given. Where there is a case to be decided is one that is without a precedent, the judge must decide it according to general principles of the law. By doing so, the judge lays down as original precedent which would then be used in subsequent similar cases.
There are two main principles that are involved in judicial precedent; these are ratio decidendi and the obiter dictum. Ratio decidendi is
Doctrine of Precedent is a legal term to describe the practice where decisions established in previous Court rulings are legally binding on future cases which have similar circumstances and facts and must be followed. Rulings issued from a Court are binding on that level of Court and lower Courts as the court system follows a hierarchy. The binding force of the precedent depends on the hierarchy of courts, some courts have greater authority than others, a decision made by a court in the superior court will be binding on all other courts, this is the principle behind the doctrine The doctrine of precedent is in the common law system of rights and duties. The courts are bound, within prescribed limits, by prior decisions of superior courts.
A binding precedent is to be followed whether it is in sympathy with the decision or not. Each court has to decide for itself whether there is a precedent binding in the cases given and covering the cases given. Where there is a case to be decided is one that is without a precedent, the judge must decide it according to general principles of the law. By doing so, the judge lays down as original precedent which would then be used in subsequent similar cases.
There are two main principles that are involved in judicial precedent; these are ratio decidendi and the obiter dictum. Ratio decidendi is