Stare Decisis & Court Hierarchy (Australia) PDF

3.2 STARE DECISIS AND THE COURT HIERARCHY  THE PRINCIPLE OF STARE DECISIS If a court has decided a case and a similar case arises again at a later date, would the new case be decided the same way as the earlier one? Yes, because of the doctrine of precedent. ‘Stare decisis’ means ‘...

3.2 STARE DECISIS AND THE COURT HIERARCHY  THE PRINCIPLE OF STARE DECISIS If a court has decided a case and a similar case arises again at a later date, would the new case be decided the same way as the earlier one? Yes, because of the doctrine of precedent. ‘Stare decisis’ means ‘let the decision stand’ i.e. let it be seen as laying down the rule by which later such cases will also be decided. In particular, the doctrine of precedent states that: previous decisions of superior courts must be followed, unless the cases can be distinguished on their material facts and therefore treated as sufficiently different to justify applying different rules.  THE RATIO DECIDENDI OF A CASE The ratio decidendi of a case consists of the legal principle, rule or reason which the court has applied to the materials facts of the case to arrive at its decision. A ratio decidendi is a flexible and sometimes difficult thing to ascertain with absolute precision. The ratio decidendi is the essential part of the precedent. ASCERTAINING WHEN A ‘RATIO’ IS BINDING When courts are ranked in seniority, with a right of appeal from lower level courts to superior courts, they are said to have a hierarchical relationship. Lower courts are bound to follow the previous decisions of superior courts in the same hierarchy. The decisions of courts outside of a hierarchy are not binding, but may be persuasive.  THE COURT HIERARCHY IN AUSTRALIA Cth Vic NSW (CIVIL CASES) Qld SA Tas WA ACT NT High Court of Australia (highest court in all jurisdictions) Full Court of Court of Court of Full Court Full Court Court of Court of Court of Court of Appeal Appeal Appeal of the of the Appeal Appeal Appeal the Supreme Supreme Federal Court Court Court Federal Supreme Supreme Supreme Supreme Supreme Supreme Supreme Supreme Court Court Court Court Court Court Court Court Court (various (various (various (various (various (various (various divisions) divisions) divisions) divisions) divisions) divisions) divisions) County District District District District Court Court Court Court Court Federal Magistrates Local Magistrates Magistrates Magistrates Magistrates Magistrates Magistrates Circuit Court Court Court Court Court Court Court Court Court & Family Court  COURT HIERARCHY: NUMBER OF JUDGES WHO WILL SIT ON A CASE  AN EXAMPLE OF CASE LAW: TAYLOR V JOHNSON Taylor v Johnson (1983) 151 CLR 422 (there is also a summary of this case in the textbook) Johnson sent a written contract to Taylor, offering to sell 10 acres of land to Taylor. She thought she was offering to sell at a price of $15,000 per acre. But the contract clearly stated the price as $15,000 for the ten acres. Taylor quickly accepted the written offer, agreeing to buy the ten acres for $15,000. The court that first heard the case applied two established common law rules: A contract will be enforced according to its agreed terms. What has been agreed is judged objectively.  TAYLOR V JOHNSON (CONT) In Taylor’s case, it appeared (objectively) that the parties had agreed to sell the ten acres for $15,000. A mistake by one party as to the agreed terms of a contract does not affect objective agreement. The court decided to enforce the contract on its stated terms, despite Johnson’s mistake. Johnson appealed against this decision to the New South Wales Court of Appeal and was successful. Taylor then appealed to the High Court. On appeal, the High Court took note of additional facts. The court found that, when he accepted the offer, Taylor must have known the price was too good to be true, and deliberately made sure that Johnson did not discover the mistake until after the agreement was completed.  TAYLOR V JOHNSON (CONT) In the light of these additional facts, the court decided that it would be against good conscience (ie contrary to equity) to allow Taylor to enforce the contract. It was the first time this equitable principle had been applied to this type of case. This decision now stands as a precedent for future cases that have similar material facts. The ratio decidendi of Taylor’s case can be stated as: In equity, it is contrary to good conscience to enforce a contract if: one of the parties is seriously mistaken, and the second party was aware of circumstances that indicate the first party is mistaken, and the second party deliberately acts to ensure the error is not discovered until it is too late.