Avoiding Judicial Precedent

Question 1

Distinguishing

Answer 1

A case is distinguishing where the material facts of a case are significantly different from the earlier case. The judge must find the important differences between the two cases so a new precedent can be created.
Balfour v Balfour- married and living amicably- not legally binding
Merritt v Merritt- estranged and separated- legally binding as separated

Question 2

Reversing

Answer 2

Applies where a cad goes on appeal and a higher court reverses the decision of a lower court. For example, the court of appeal may disagree with the legal ruling of the high court and from a different view of the law. The court of appeal may reverse the decision of the high court.
(Sweet v Parsley)

Question 3

Overruling

Answer 3

A higher court, in a later case, states that the legal rule decided in an earlier case is incorrect from a lower court (could be time changes). Some courts overrule their decisions e.g. the European Courts of Justice can overrule itself, as it is not bound by previous decisions. The supreme court can overrule itself using the practice statement it the court of appeal using exception from Young v Bristol Aeroplane: exceptions-
When there are 2 conflicting court of appeal decisions. A coa decision conflicts with a supreme court/ house of Lords Decision. The coa decision was made per incuriam (in error)
Criminal decision does not need to follow one of its previous decisions if the law had been misapplied or misunderstood. This is because people’s liberty is involved as stated in R v Gould

Question 4

Per incuriam (in error)

Answer 4

This is when a judge in a previous case has overlooked an important point of law and the decision made was therefore wrong. In this instance, the decision can be overruled.
This is quite rare however in Williams v Faiucent the judge refused to follow a previous decision as it was made in error

Question 5

Practice statement

Answer 5

Before 1898 the HOL was not bound by itself but became bound in London Street Tramurge v Landon CC. Unable to keep up laws could only be changed in Parliament so Practice Statements introduced so could change decisions. First major use was in British Railways Board v Herrington overruling Addie v Dumbreck. Criminal case of R v Shivipuri overruling Anderton v Ryan. It asks to depart from decisions only when it appears right to do so