Types of Precedent Flashcards
What is the meaning of ‘ratio decidendi’ in judicial precedent?
Ratio decidendi means ‘the reason for deciding’ and refers to the statement of the law in relation to the case the judge is hearing.
Why is the ratio decidendi an essential element of judicial precedent?
The ratio decidendi must be followed in future cases of similar facts by all courts below and, sometimes, by courts at the same level.
In the case of Donoghue v Stevenson, what was the ratio decidendi?
The ratio decidendi in Donoghue v Stevenson was that the manufacturer of a product owes a duty of care to the consumer.
Which areas of law have developed through binding precedents, as mentioned in the notes?
Areas like Rylands v Fletcher, nuisance, and negligence have developed through binding precedents.
What is the definition of a ‘persuasive precedent’?
A persuasive precedent is a legal decision that is not binding but may be followed if the judge is persuaded by it.
Is a persuasive precedent binding on future cases? Explain why or why not.
A persuasive precedent is not binding, but it may influence future cases if the judge decides to follow it.
What are the two key functions of persuasive precedents?
Persuasive precedents help develop the law by potentially becoming the ratio decidendi of future cases and thus becoming binding precedents.
What is ‘obiter dicta’ and how does it influence future cases?
Obiter dicta are remarks made by a judge that are not necessary for the decision but may influence future cases.
In R v Howe, what did the court state about the defence of duress?
In R v Howe, the court stated that duress is not a defence to murder, and also that it would not be a defence to attempted murder.
How was the decision in R v Howe followed in R v Gotts?
R v Gotts followed the obiter dicta in R v Howe, denying the defendant the defence of duress for an attempted murder charge.
What is a dissenting judgment and how does it differ from the majority judgment?
A dissenting judgment is given by a judge who disagrees with the majority in a case. It differs from the majority judgment because it represents an alternative view.
How did Lord Denning’s dissenting judgment in Candler v Crane, Christmas and Co influence future cases?
In Candler v Crane, Christmas and Co, Lord Denning gave a dissenting judgment stating that a duty of care arises in tort when making a statement that will be relied upon. This was followed in Hedley Byrne v Heller.
In R v R, why did the House of Lords follow the Court of Appeal’s reasoning?
In R v R, the House of Lords followed the Court of Appeal’s reasoning in deciding that a man could be guilty of raping his wife.
What is the role of decisions made by the Privy Council in judicial precedent?
Decisions made by the Privy Council can influence future cases, particularly if the case involves legal principles from other jurisdictions that may be relevant in the UK.
Give an example of a decision made by the Privy Council that influenced later cases.
In The Wagon Mound, the Privy Council’s decision influenced the development of the law of negligence in later cases.
How do courts in Commonwealth countries, such as Canada or Australia, influence UK law?
Courts in Commonwealth countries like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand can influence UK law through decisions that are based on similar common law principles.
In Bazely v Curry, what principle was established by the Supreme Court of Canada?
In Bazely v Curry, the Supreme Court of Canada held that a non-profit organisation could be vicariously liable for sexual misconduct by one of its employees.
In Lister v Hesley Hall, how was the decision from the Supreme Court of Canada applied in the UK?
The decision in Bazely v Curry was considered in Lister v Hesley Hall, where the UK courts followed the principle that an employer could be vicariously liable for certain employee actions.
What is ‘original precedent’ in judicial law?
Original precedent is a new precedent created when a point of law has never been decided before.
In Airedale NHS Trust v Bland, what original precedent did the House of Lords create?
In Airedale NHS Trust v Bland, the House of Lords made an original precedent legalising passive euthanasia, deciding that medical treatment could be withdrawn from a patient in a persistent vegetative state.
