|
Per Incuriam
''Per incuriam'', literally translated as "through lack of care" is a device within the common law system of judicial precedent. A finding of ''per incuriam'' means that a previous court judgment has failed to pay attention to relevant statutory provision or precedents. The significance of a judgment having been decided ''per incuriam'' is that it need not be followed by a lower court. Ordinarily, the '' rationes'' of a judgment is binding upon lower courts in similar cases. However, a lower court is free to depart from a decision of a superior court if the earlier judgment was decided ''per incuriam''. Examples of ''per incuriam'' Examples of ''per incuriam'' are uncommon partly because the device is perceived by upper courts as a type of ''lèse-majesté'', and respectful lower courts prefer to distinguish such precedent cases if possible. The Court of Appeal in ''Morelle Ltd v Wakeling'' 9552 QB 379 stated that as a general rule, the only cases in which decisions should b ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Common Law
Common law (also known as judicial precedent, judge-made law, or case law) is the body of law primarily developed through judicial decisions rather than statutes. Although common law may incorporate certain statutes, it is largely based on precedent—judicial rulings made in previous similar cases. The presiding judge determines which precedents to apply in deciding each new case. Common law is deeply rooted in Precedent, ''stare decisis'' ("to stand by things decided"), where courts follow precedents established by previous decisions. When a similar case has been resolved, courts typically align their reasoning with the precedent set in that decision. However, in a "case of first impression" with no precedent or clear legislative guidance, judges are empowered to resolve the issue and establish new precedent. The common law, so named because it was common to all the king's courts across England, originated in the practices of the courts of the English kings in the centuries fo ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Judicial Precedent
Precedent is a judicial decision that serves as an authority for courts when deciding subsequent identical or similar cases. Fundamental to common law legal systems, precedent operates under the principle of ''stare decisis'' ("to stand by things decided"), where past judicial decisions serve as case law to guide future rulings, thus promoting consistency and predictability. Precedent is a defining feature that sets common law systems apart from civil law systems. In common law, precedent can either be something courts must follow (binding) or something they can consider but do not have to follow (persuasive). Civil law systems, in contrast, are characterized by comprehensive codes and detailed statutes, with no emphasis on precedent, and where judges primarily focus on fact-finding and applying codified law. Courts in common law systems rely heavily on case law, which refers to the collection of precedents and legal principles established by previous judicial decisions on s ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Court
A court is an institution, often a government entity, with the authority to adjudicate legal disputes between Party (law), parties and Administration of justice, administer justice in Civil law (common law), civil, Criminal law, criminal, and Administrative law, administrative matters in accordance with the rule of law. Courts generally consist of Judge, judges or other judicial officers, and are usually established and dissolved through legislation enacted by a legislature. Courts may also be established by constitution or an equivalent constituting instrument. The practical authority given to the court is known as its jurisdiction, which describes the court's power to decide certain kinds of questions, or Petition, petitions put to it. There are various kinds of courts, including trial courts, appellate courts, administrative courts, international courts, and tribunals. Description A court is any person or institution, often as a government institution, with the authori ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Ratio Decidendi
' (; Latin plural ') is a Latin phrase meaning "the reason" or "the rationale for the decision". The ''ratio decidendi'' is "the point in a case that determines the judgement" or "the principle that the case establishes".See Barron's Law Dictionary, page 385 (2d ed. 1984). ''ratio decidendi'' is a legal rule derived from, and consistent with, those parts of legal reasoning within a judgment on which the outcome of the case depends. It is a legal phrase which refers to the legal, moral, political and social principles used by a court to compose the rationale of a particular judgment. Unlike '' obiter dicta'', the ''ratio decidendi'' is, as a general rule, binding on courts of lower and later jurisdiction—through the doctrine of '' stare decisis''. Certain courts are able to overrule decisions of a court of coordinate jurisdiction. However, out of interests of judicial comity, they generally try to follow coordinate rationes. The process of determining the ''ratio decidendi' ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Lèse-majesté
''Lèse-majesté'' or ''lese-majesty'' ( , ) is an offence or defamation against the dignity of a ruling head of state (traditionally a monarch but now more often a president) or of the state itself. The English name for this crime is a modernised borrowing from the medieval French, where the phrase meant . In classical Latin, meant 'hurt/violated majesty' or 'injured sovereignty' (originally with reference to the majesty of the sovereign people, in post-classical Latin also of the monarch). The concept of ''lèse-majesté'' expressed the idea of a criminal offence against the dignity of the Roman Republic of ancient Rome. In the Dominate, or late Empire period (from the 3rd century CE), the Roman Emperor, emperors continued to distance themselves from the republican ideals of the Roman Republic, and increasingly equated themselves with the state. Although legally the (the emperor's official title, meaning, roughly, 'first citizen') could never become a sovereign because t ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Distinguishing
In law, to distinguish a case means a court decides the holding or legal reasoning of a precedent case that will not apply due to materially different facts between the two cases. Two formal constraints constrain the later court: the expressed relevant factors (also known as considerations, tests, questions or determinants) in the ''ratio'' (legal reasoning) of the earlier case must be recited or their equivalent recited or the earlier case makes an exception for their application in the circumstances otherwise it envisages, and the ruling in the later case must not expressly doubt (criticise) the result reached in the precedent case.Lamond, Grant"Precedent and Analogy in Legal Reasoning: 2.1 Precedents as laying down rules:2.1.2 The practice of distinguishing". ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.'' Stanford University. 2006-06-20. The ruling made by the judge or panel of judges must be based on the evidence at hand and the standard binding authorities covering the subject ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Court Of Appeal Of England And Wales
The Court of Appeal (formally "His Majesty's Court of Appeal in England", commonly cited as "CA", "EWCA" or "CoA") is the highest court within the Senior Courts of England and Wales, and second in the legal system of England and Wales only to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. The Court of Appeal was created in 1875, and today comprises 39 Lord Justices of Appeal and Lady Justices of Appeal. The court has two divisions, Criminal and Civil, led by the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls respectively. Criminal appeals are heard in the Criminal Division, and civil appeals in the Civil Division. The Criminal Division hears appeals from the Crown Court, while the Civil Division hears appeals from the County Court, High Court of Justice and Family Court. Permission to appeal is normally required from either the lower court or the Court of Appeal itself; and with permission, further appeal may lie to the Supreme Court. Its decisions are binding on all courts, ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
King's Bench Division
The King's Bench Division (or Queen's Bench Division when the monarch is female) of the High Court of Justice deals with a wide range of common law cases and has supervisory responsibility over certain lower courts. It hears appeals on points of law from magistrates' courts and from the Crown Court. These are known as appeals by way of case stated, since the questions of law are considered solely on the basis of the facts found and stated by the authority under review. Specialised courts of the King's Bench Division include the Administrative Court, Technology and Construction Court, Commercial Court, and the Admiralty Court. The specialised judges and procedures of these courts are tailored to their type of business, but they are not essentially different from any other court of the King's Bench Division. Appeals from the High Court in civil matters are made to the Court of Appeal (Civil Division); in criminal matters appeal from the Divisional Court is made only to the S ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Judicial Functions Of The House Of Lords
Whilst the House of Lords of the United Kingdom is the upper chamber of Parliament and has government ministers, for many centuries it had a judicial function. It functioned as a court of first instance for the trials of peers and for Impeachment in the United Kingdom, impeachments, and as a court of last resort in the United Kingdom and prior, the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of England. Appeals were technically not to the House of Lords, but rather to the King-in-Parliament. In Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876, 1876, the Appellate Jurisdiction Act devolved the appellate functions of the House to an Appellate Committee, composed of Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (informally referred to as Law Lords). They were then appointed by the Lord Chancellor in the same manner as other judges. During the 20th and early 21st century, the judicial functions were gradually removed. Its final trial of a peer was in 1935, and the use of special courts for ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd
''In Re'' ''Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd'' (1921) is an English tort case on causation and remoteness in the law of negligence. The Court of Appeal held that a defendant can be deemed liable for all consequences flowing from his negligent conduct regardless of how unforeseeable such consequences are. The case is an example of strict liability, a concept which has generally fallen out of favour with the common law courts. The case may now be considered "bad law", having been superseded by the landmark decisions of ''Donoghue v Stevenson'' and '' The Wagon Mound (No 1)''. Facts Defendant's stevedore employees were loading cargo into a ship. An employee negligently caused a plank to fall into the ship's hold. The plank caused a spark, which ignited some petrol vapour in the hold, causing an explosion that resulted in the ship becoming a total loss. The matter was taken to arbitration. Judgment The arbitrator found that the defendant's negligence caused the plank to fall, ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Hadley V Baxendale
''Hadley & Anor v Baxendale'' ''& Ors'' 854EWHC J70is a leading English contract law case. It sets the leading rule to determine consequential damages from a breach of contract: a breaching party is liable for all losses that the contracting parties should have foreseen. However, if the other party has special knowledge that the party-in-breach does not, the breaching party is only liable for the losses that he could have foreseen on the information available to them. Facts The claimants, Mr Hadley and another, were millers and mealmen and worked together in a partnership. A crankshaft of a steam engine at the mill had broken and Hadley arranged to have a new one made by W. Joyce & Co. in Greenwich. Before the new crankshaft could be made, W. Joyce & Co. required that the broken crankshaft be sent to them in order to ensure that the new crankshaft would fit together properly with the other parts of the steam engine. Hadley contracted with defendants Baxendale and others to de ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Central London Property Trust Ltd V High Trees House Ltd
''Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd'' 947KB 130, commonly called ''High Trees'', is a leading opinion in the High Court relating to contract law. It reaffirmed and extended the doctrine of promissory estoppel in the contract law of England and Wales. However, the most significant part of the judgment is ''obiter dictum'' as it relates to hypothetical facts; that is, the landlord did ''not'' seek repayment of the full wartime rent. Denning J held estoppel to be applicable if Facts High Trees House Ltd leased a block of flats in Battersea, London from Central London Property Trust Ltd. The agreement was made in 1937 and specified an annual ground rent of £2,500. The outbreak of World War II in September 1939 led to a downturn in the rental market. High Trees struggled to find tenants for the property and approached Central London Property Trust in January 1940 to request that the rent be lowered. A reduction to £1,250 per year was agreed in writing, ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
