Sources of Law II: Case Law Overview

The principle that lower courts must follow decisions made by higher courts in their jurisdiction.

The principle that a court should follow its own previous decisions on similar cases.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is the highest court in the EU. Its decisions bind all UK courts on matters of EU Law.

This applies when a lower court can deviate from a higher court's decision. It's less common but possible.

The UK Supreme Court has both vertical and horizontal stare decisis. This means it binds lower courts and itself on previous rulings.

The Privy Council (Judicial Committee) has a complex system of stare decisis. It binds lower courts, but it's not completely bound by its past rulings.

Lower courts, like magistrates' courts, family courts, and county courts, are not bound by their own previous decisions. They have to follow higher courts.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is independent of the EU courts. It has no stare decisis, meaning it doesn't bind itself or other courts.

A higher court declares that a previous decision (by itself or a different court) was wrong and shouldn't be followed in future cases.

A higher court changes the decision of a lower court in the same case.

When a lower court is legally obligated to follow a decision from a higher court.

A method used by lower courts to avoid applying a precedent from a higher court, arguing that the current case has different facts that make the precedent irrelevant.

A landmark case that helps lower courts understand how a higher court applies a particular legal principle.

The process of finding and applying relevant legal principles to solve a legal problem.

A previous case that is used as an example to resolve similar legal issues.

An argument that tries to establish a similarity between the current case and a previous case, making the precedent applicable.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is a court that decides on cases related to human rights violations within the European Union. Its rulings are highly influential but don't directly bind English courts. Instead, English courts need to 'take into account' ECtHR decisions.

The Court of Appeal is a higher court in England than lower courts, and its rulings bind those lower courts. However, it's bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court.

Although typically bound by its own previous decisions, the Court of Appeal has a few exceptions. These exceptions allow the court to deviate from past rulings in specific situations.

The Court of Appeal can overturn its own previous decisions if they conflict with another ruling from the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal is bound to follow a decision from the Supreme Court, even if it contradicts its own previous decisions.

The Court of Appeal can depart from a previous ruling if it conflicts with a Supreme Court decision.

A classic case that established the Court of Appeal's exceptions to its self-binding rule. It involved workmen's compensation and clarified the court's ability to change previous rulings.

These examples demonstrate that the Court of Appeal is bound by the decisions of higher courts, particularly the Supreme Court. Moreover, it generally adheres to its own prior rulings, although it is permitted to deviate under specific circumstances.

The ability of a court to change existing law, typically through the process of creating new precedents.

The principle that courts are generally bound to follow previous decisions made by higher courts in similar cases.

A statement made by a court that isn't part of the main ruling, but still offers legal guidance.

When a court's previous decision was made without considering all relevant laws or cases.

The Court of Appeal can depart from its own previous decisions under certain circumstances.

A decision of the Supreme Court, even if a side statement, can bind lower courts, even if it doesn't directly relate to the case at hand.

A case where a defendant exploited care home residents by taking their money, and the court had to consider the binding nature of the Supreme Court's decisions.

A superior court can choose not to follow a previous decision, even if it is binding. This doesn't necessarily mean the previous decision is wrong, just that the superior court has a different opinion.

A superior court might express doubt about the validity of a previous decision without overruling it. This happens if the court isn't sure if the previous ruling is correct, but doesn't feel it's necessary or has the authority to change it.

A superior court might simply state that a previous decision is incorrect without formally changing it. The court doesn't necessarily overrule the decision, but expresses its disapproval of the decision's principles.

A superior court declares that a previous precedent is wrong and changes it. This creates a new binding precedent for future cases.

When a court overturns the factual findings of a lower court. This happens in cases where the lower court might have made a mistake in its interpretation of the facts or evidence.

A court removes or invalidates the decision of a lower court. This is common in criminal cases where the conviction is deemed unfair.

A court can depart from a previous decision, but it is a rare power that is typically reserved for the highest court. While the court has the power to overturn precedents, in practice, they rarely do so.

A term in the context of judicial precedent that describes how a court's previous decisions are treated by other courts in the hierarchy. It can be vertical or horizontal, or a combination of both.

A situation where a court is not bound by its own previous rulings.

Courts in England and Wales generally follow the principle of stare decisis, but certain courts, such as the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, have a stronger binding effect on lower courts.

This principle refers to the practice of courts following past decisions, or precedents, in their judgments, and is essential to the English common law system.