Lecture 5 Case Law 1

7/27/2019 Lecture 5 Case Law 1

1/25

CASE LAW

PART 1

THEORETICAL DIMENSIONS

1


2/25

CASE LAW

Law is not found only in legislation but also in

the CASES decided by the courts

(superior courts Federal Court, Court of

Appeal & High Court)

Decisions of the courts = sources of law as

they decide on matters of law whereas

inferior courts decide on matters of facts

2


3/25

CASE LAW

An important and primary source of law

Whilst statutes prescribe the law governing a

particular matter, judges INTERPRET them

within the framework ofFACTS in casesand when this exercise establishes a rule, it

becomes a PRECEDENT

3


4/25

Judges contribute to development of

law in 2 ways

By APPLYING anestablished rule ofprinciple to a newsituation or a set offacts

Occurs most frequentlyin areas wherestatutory law has madeless impact such as thelaw of torts

By INTERPRETINGstatutes enacted bythe legislature.

Statutes are rarely self-contained or self-explanatory & courtsare frequently calledupon to decide whatthey mean & how theyare to be applied inparticular situations

4


5/25

Judges do not decide arbitrarily

in arriving at a decision!

5


6/25

They must follow PRECEDENT

A JUDGEMENT or DECISION of a court of law

cited as an authority for the legal principle

embodied in its decisions

This practice of following precedent is

commonly known as STARE DECISIS(literally it means let the decision stand)

6


7/25

STARE DECISIS

When a court makes a decision in a case then

any courts which are of EQUAL or LOWER

status to that court MUST follow that previous

decision if the case before them is similar to

that earlier case.

Once a superior court has decided upon a

certain matter, the inferior courts are boundto follow that decision

7


8/25

STARE DECISIS

If a judge fails to follow a binding precedent

the DECISION will be legally wrong and faces

likelihood ofREVERSAL upon appeal.

Even if there is no appeal for that particular

case, it can be OVERRULED in a latter case

8


9/25

A DECISION of a case can mean a

number of different things:

Simplest : the decision is that X won and Y lost

Thus X and Y are bound by that decision (this is

referred to as

res judicata)

But when the word decision is used in the

context of legal analysis it refers to something

wider

It refers to the whole REASONING PROCESS

that went into deciding that X won

9


10/25

Doctrine of Judicial Precedent is not simply a

mechanical process

Of matching similarities and differences.

Not merely a science of comparisons for it

embodies the art of interpretation; the art of

propounding the principle to be derived from

each case

It involves ARGUMENTS

10


11/25

In deciding which precedent is binding,

judge is influenced by:

1. The ORIGIN of the precedent precedent

must originate from a court of appropriaterank in the same hierarchy

2. The CONTENTS of the precedent = theRATIO DECIDENDI

11


12/25

No two cases are ever alike.

Query: how alike does a later case have to bedone before a court must follow a given

precedent? The theory of precedent rests upon the

proposition that the similarity between two

cases derives not just from their specific facts,but from their respective law-and-factcontent

12


13/25

In law, every case has 2 aspects:

Particular dispute itself aFACT-SITUATION-

Examples:

A consumer alleges injury

suffered due to a faultyproduct;

A motorist is prosecuted for

driving whilst drunk;

A husband brings an actionagainst wife for divorce

PRECISE LEGAL ISSUEwhich these facts raise

Examples:

Circumstances provided in lawwhereby consumer obtains aremedy;

The legally prescribedconditions of liability underwhich motorist may beprosecuted

The legal grounds which mustbe shown before a divorcemay be granted

13


14/25

It is these issues that legalargument and the citation of

precedents are directed

14


15/25

Example

If the consumers injury is caused by a defective

bottle of shampoo, the Law Reports need not be

searched for previous cases where a bottle of

shampoo caused injury It is enough that we discover a legal authority,

through precedents, for the general legal

proposition that a consumer may in appropriatecircumstances recover compensation for injury

caused by a defective product

15


16/25

The actual item which features in previous

cases might be a car, underwear or a bottle of

ginger-beer,

What really matters is the legal principle

involved and NOT the specific facts of the

previous case

16


17/25

This legal principle is known asthe RATIO DECIDENDIthe part

of the decision which constitutes

the binding precedent

17


18/25

Seems a simple proposition but its not.

Why?

Different judges may interpret judgments

given in previous cases quite differently

Different judges may conclude that in their

opinion the correct reading of a case provide

the ratio which may be wider or more

restrictive than the interpretation of their

colleagues on the bench

18


19/25

Example of actual case law

Case 1: Donoghue v Stevenson[1932]

Suffered gastro-enteritis &

nervous shock due to

decomposed snail fallingout of the ginger beer

bottle which was opaque

Case 2: Grant v AustralianKnitting Mills [1936]

Contracted severe

dermatitis owing to excess

of sulphites in the garmentswhich should have been

removed by the

manufacturing process

19


20/25

Some cases it is extremely difficult, if not

impossible,

to ascertain precisely the ratio of the case

And to distinguish the ratio from the

obiter dicta (the judges statements which are NOT part

of the points of legal principle and

accordingly not binding)

20


21/25

Twinning and Miers:

talk of finding the ratio decidendi of a

case obscures the fact that the

process of interpreting cases is notlike a hunt for the buried treasure,

but typically involves an element of

choice from a range of possibilities

21


22/25

Exceptions (WHEN judges need not

follow precedents):

If they can DISTINGUISH the facts of the

earlier case(s) from the current one;

Sometimes, they can even OVERRULE a

precedent (for eg. If they sitting in a superior

court in the hierarchy of courts)

22


23/25

Distinguishing on the Facts

A device where a precedent may be avoided

Open to all courts irrespective of their place in

the hierarchy

This means that if a judge thinks that a

precedent which otherwise covers the case in

hand is nevertheless different in some

material particular, then the precedent may

be distinguished and not followed

23


24/25

Process ofOVERRULING

Inherent in the court structure itself

A court is free to overrule a decision of a court

LOWER than itself, IF it is of the opinion that

the previous case was wrongly decided or has

become out of date

Eg: CoA may overrule a HC decision a FC may

overrule a CoA decision and sometimes a

previous decision of its own

24


25/25

Conclusion

STARE DECISIS / DOCTRINE OF PRECEDENT :let the decision stand /prinsip mematuhikeputusan yang terdahulu

RATIO DECIDENDI: part of the decision thatbinds / bahagian kes yang mengikat

OBITER DICTA: statements in passing /part of

the decision that DOES NOT bind / bahagiankes yang tidak mengikat

RES JUDICATA: Matter has been decided

25

Documents

Lecture 5 Case Law 1