Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Judicial Precedent - Ratio Decidendi/Types of Precedent (How is it…
Judicial Precedent - Ratio Decidendi/Types of Precedent
Basic Info
the reason for deciding
the legal principle on which the courts' decision is based
the ratio must be followed in future cases of similar fact by the same courts and all courts below
the ratio becomes the binding precedent for future cases where the facts are sufficiently similar
e.g. :red_flag: Donoghue v Stevenson followed in :red_flag: Grant v Australian Knitting Mills and :red_flag: Daniels v White
How is it presented?
after hearing a case, judges present their written judgement setting out the facts or the case and the ratio decidendi
the ratio is contained in the judgement of the court
it can be difficult to identify the ratio
appeal court decisions are made by more than one judge, and different judges may give different reasons for the overall decision
judges will hardly ever state explicitly the ratio in the judgement
lawyers and subsequent judges (in later cases of similar fact) must find the ratio
Types of Precedent
original
persuasive
binding
Original precedent
created due to a new situation
:red_flag: the Gillick case
if the POL has never been decided before, then whatever the judges decides will form a new precedent
Persuasive precedent
Types of persuasive precedent
obiter dicta
decisions of lower courts
dissenting judgements
decisions of courts in other countries
decisions of the judicial committee of the privy council decisions
may be followed by judges in future cases of similar fact if the judge chooses to do so
can influence future decisions
unlike a binding precedent, which must be followed
1. Obiter dicta
other things said
these are judge's NON-BINDING comments contained in the judgement but indirectly related to the ratio
e.g. judges might speculate on what the ratio might have been if the facts were slightly different
:red_flag: R v Howe followed in :red_flag: R v Gotts
persusive, may influence future decisions
Binding precedent
precedent from an earlier case which must be followed even if the judge in the later case disagrees with the legal principle
only created when the facts of the second case are sufficiently similar to the original case and the decision was made by a higher court as the one hearing the later case
2. Lower courts
Crown Court decisions cannot form binding precedents
HL has often been influenced by CA decisions
e.g. :red_flag: Miliangos v George Frank Textiles Ltd.
3. Dissenting Judgements
in the SC and CA, the case is heard by more than one judge
a dissenting judgement is a minority judgement - where a judge has disagreed with the majority decision
e.g. Lord Denning in :red_flag: Candler v Crane Christmas followed by HL in :red_flag: Hedley Byrne v Heller
4. Privy Council
judicial committee of the privy council = court of final appeal for some Commonwealth countries
e.g. :red_flag: Thabo Meli and :red_flag: the Wagon Mound
5. Courts in other countries
Commonwealth countries such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand
US decisions
decisions of the Scottish courts
:red_flag: R v R influenced by Scottish courts