The English Legal System & Case Law Flashcards
Which of the following elements are necessary for the application of the doctrine of stare decisis?
A proposition stated in one case is binding in a later case if it is:
A proposition of fact.
A proposition of law.
Part of the leading judgment.
Part of the ratio decidendi of a case.
Part of the obiter dictum of a case.
Decided in a court whose decisions are binding on the present court.
Decided in a higher court.
Decided in the House of Lords/Supreme Court or Court of Appeal.
The facts are the same in both cases.
There are no relevant distinctions between the cases.
The cases involve the same parties.
If the cases involve consideration of a statute, the same statute is considered in both.
Feedback
Unfortunately, you were not correct. There are several factors which must be considered in order for a proposition to be binding: A proposition stated in one case is binding in a later case if it is:
- a proposition of law;
- part of the ratio decidendi of a case;
- decided in a court whose decisions are binding on the present court; and
- there are no relevant distinctions between the two cases.
Which of the following Courts’ decisions are binding on the High Court? There may be MORE than one correct answer.
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
High Court (Divisional Court)
Supreme Court
County Court
That’s not the right answer. Think about the hierarchy of the above courts. A, B and C are the correct answers. Although the High Court is not normally bound by itself, it does bind itself in its capacity as an appeals court. The County Court binds neither itself nor any other courts.
To remind yourself of the hierarchy of the courts, please click on the link.
Locate the case of Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd. [1953] 1 QB 401. Read the facts in the first 2 paragraphs and then the judgment of Birkett LJ.
In a future case, which one or more of the following facts do you think WOULD distinguish the later case?
The basket was made of wicker and not wire.
The shop was not self-service.
The goods were not medicines but wine.
The cashier was not a registered pharmacist.
Unfortunately you were incorrect.
(Arguably) the material facts are that this was a self service shop and this led to the reasoning that it would be absurd to say the sale was effected when the goods were picked up from the shelf; therefore, the sale was effected under the supervision of the pharmacist when the items were purchased at the till. The nature of the receptacle, the type of goods, and the profession of the cashier, are not material facts. The nature of the transaction (i.e. self service) is.
Outlined below is the correct order of hierarchy of the courts of England and Wales - True or False?
- Supreme Court
2, Court of Appeal - High Court
- Crown Court
- Magistrates’ Courts
True
False
Well done, you correctly identified the hierarchy of the courts.
s the following statement true or false?
In a trial taking place in the High Court one of the advocates asks the judge to consider a case from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The judge is bound by a statement of law from that earlier case (assuming the material facts are indistinguishable).
True
False
Incorrect. Decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council are persuasive authority in the Courts of England and Wales. Note, however, that this court is composed of Justices of the Supreme Court, so such decisions are frequently regarded as very strong authority even if not formally binding.
Which of the following is not an exception to the principle that the Court of Appeal is bound by its own previous decisions?
There is only ONE correct answer.
Where the earlier decision was made per incuriam.
Where its own previous decisions conflict.
Where its previous decision had been implicitly overruled by the House of Lords/ Supreme Court.
Where there is a unanimous decision to overrule the earlier decision.
Well done. D is correct as this is not one of the exceptions created by the rule in Young v Bristol Aeroplane [1944] KB 718.
Which of the following statements is correct concerning the Crown Court in criminal matters?
There is only ONE correct answer.
The Crown Court is bound by its own previous decisions.
The Crown Court is not bound or persuaded by its own previous decisions.
The Crown Court is strongly persuaded by its own previous decisions.
Well done. C is the correct answer. Although it is not technically bound by its own previous decisions, in the interests of certainty in criminal matters, it is strongly persuaded by them.
Imagine you are a High Court judge, dealing with an appeal from the County Court. You are considering authorities from previous cases.
Please select the order of priority which you will give to these fictional authorities.
For the purposes of this question, assume that all factors other than hierarchy and the status of the judgment are equal. Note that the House of Lords was the predecessor of the UK Supreme Court
- 1980 House of Lords - Ratio
- 1990 Court of Appeal - Ratio
- 1995 House of Lords - Obiter
- 2000 Court of Appeal - Obiter
- 1995 House of Lords - Dissent
- 1970 Court of Appeal - Ratio (overruled by 1980 House of Lords)
- 2000 Court of Appeal - Obiter
- 1995 House of Lords - Obiter
- 1990 Court of Appeal - Ratio
- 1980 House of Lords - Ratio
- 1995 House of Lords - Dissent
- 1970 Court of Appeal - Ratio (overruled by 1980 House of Lords)
- 1980 House of Lords - Ratio
- 1995 House of Lords - Obiter
- 1995 House of Lords - Dissent
- 2000 Court of Appeal - Obiter
- 1990 Court of Appeal - Ratio
- 1970 Court of Appeal - Ratio (overruled by 1980 House of Lords)
- 1980 House of Lords - Ratio
- 1990 Court of Appeal - Ratio
- 1995 House of Lords - Obiter
- 1995 House of Lords - Dissent
- 2000 Court of Appeal - Obiter
- 1970 Court of Appeal - Ratio (overruled by 1980 House of Lords)
Feedback
Well done, In general, a court will be bound by rationes decidendi of higher courts, and then by obiter dicta of higher courts. A dissent may be persuasive. A case that has been overruled may also be persuasive but is generally considered no longer to be good law. This hierarchy is far from hard and fast. With persuasive decisions, it is not only the level of the court that is important but any other fact that is relevant - for instance the identity of the judges and the strengths of the reasoning. Note the House of Lords is the predecessor of the UK Supreme Court.
In the case of Re Abdul Manan [1971] 1 WLR 859, the Court of Appeal considered whether a seaman who had deserted his ship and lived in the United Kingdom for 2 years could remain in the country. The question was whether he was ‘ordinarily resident’ under the immigration statutes applied at the time.
Consider the following extract from Lord Denning’s judgment, and identify if the extract is the ratio decidendi, obiter dictum, per incuriam or the decision in this case.
“The point turns on the meaning of’ ‘ordinary resident’ in these statutes. If this were an income tax case he would, I expect be ordinarily resident here”
Ratio decidendi
Obiter dictum
Per incuriam
The decision
That is correct - the statement here is the Obiter - it mentions the key aspect of the case but is a general comment that is necessary for the decision. In this case the statement “ In these statues, ‘ordinary resident’ means lawful ordinary resident here” is the Ratio decidendi - as it sets out the reasoning necessary for the decision on the facts ie as applied to the immigration statutes. Per incuriam relates to the interpretation eg “ the word ‘lawfully’ is often read as ..’ and the decision is the final outcome eg - this appeal must be dismissed.
Carruthers is claiming £13,000 in compensation under the Act. In which court would he normally make his claim?
Magistrates’ court
County Court
High Court QBD
High Court Chancery Division
The correct answer is B. Claims below £100,000 (or £50,000 in relation to personal injury) are dealt with by the County Court.
Assume that this case was heard in the County Court. Which rule as to costs usually applies?
Loser pays the costs.
Winner pays the costs.
Each party bears their own costs.
No order as to costs will be made.
That’s right, the usual costs order which the court will make is that the loser should pay costs, as to do otherwise would penalise the winning party.
Mr Justice McRae was hearing the appeal from the County Court. In which court did he sit?
Supreme Court.
Court of Appeal.
High Court QBD.
High Court Ch Div.
The correct answer is C. The usual route of appeal from the County Court is to the High Court, where the QBD deals with contract and tort cases.
On appeal, the High Court had to decide whether dockyards constituted a workplace for the purposes of the Act.
Which ONE of the following is this?
A question of fact.
A question of law.
A mixed question of fact and law.
A question of time.
That is incorrect. The reason is that the court is not determining whether this particular site is a dockyard, or whether it comes within the Act, but whether dockyards are generally included. Basically the case is interpreting the law by clarifying the definition of workplace as the statutory definition is ambiguous. This distinction is important for procedure and also for the doctrine of precedent.
The manual states that a judge can justifiably reach a number of conclusions based on the factual evidence, depending on the credibility of witnesses etc. An appeal on the facts will succeed if the decision is beyond this range of reasonable conclusions. However, here in our imaginary case the court is not dealing with the question of whether a particular site falls under the Act on the facts. Instead, it is just dealign with the point of law of whether ‘a dockyard’ is a place of work within the Act.
Legal Method Study Manual, Unit 2, Activity 6 covers points of law and of fact.
In the High Court, Mr. Justice McRae allowed Carruthers’ appeal. He said: “The Supreme Court has previously ruled that a rubber plantation is not a workplace because…it is outside. Thus it is part of the natural environment only.”
What is Mr. Justice McRae doing?
Select ONE correct answer.
Following the earlier Supreme Court case.
Distinguishing it.
Reversing it.
Overruling it.
That is incorrect. The correct answer is B. The issues Mr Justice McRae is looking at is whether a dockyard is a place of work within the Act and looks at the previous Supreme Court case about a rubber plantation. He is distinguishing the Supreme Court case so that he does not have to follow it.
In the High Court, Mr. Justice McRae also said:
“…the words, ‘other workplaces’, must be construed in the light of the specific words that precede them i.e. ‘factories, workhouses and workshops’. These are all places of menial work. A workplace must therefore mean a place of menial work.”
Which rule of language is he using?
Mischief rule.
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.
Noscitur a sociis.
Eiusdem generis.
The correct answer is D.
This question is about statutory interpretation, so you need to start with the statute.
Eiusdem generis: Section 2 of the Act states that: “For the purposes of this Act a workplace shall include factories, workhouses, workshops and other workplaces”.
Hence, there are general words which follow specific words. The types of words all relate to places of menial work, and a dockyard is a place of menial work, so it is included in the Act.
When a general word is followed by two or more specific words, that general word will only apply to items of the same type as the specific words.
You may wish to refer to the Legal Method Study Manual, Unit 4, Activity 13 for more on this.
