|
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 where that 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 shou ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Common Law
In law, common law (also known as judicial precedent, judge-made law, or case law) is the body of law created by judges and similar quasi-judicial tribunals by virtue of being stated in written opinions."The common law is not a brooding omnipresence in the sky, but the articulate voice of some sovereign or quasi sovereign that can be identified," ''Southern Pacific Company v. Jensen'', 244 U.S. 205, 222 (1917) (Oliver Wendell Holmes, dissenting). By the early 20th century, legal professionals had come to reject any idea of a higher or natural law, or a law above the law. The law arises through the act of a sovereign, whether that sovereign speaks through a legislature, executive, or judicial officer. The defining characteristic of common law is that it arises as precedent. Common law courts look to the past decisions of courts to synthesize the legal principles of past cases. '' Stare decisis'', the principle that cases should be decided according to consistent principled rules so ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Judicial Precedent
A precedent is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. Common-law legal systems place great value on deciding cases according to consistent principled rules, so that similar facts will yield similar and predictable outcomes, and observance of precedent is the mechanism by which that goal is attained. The principle by which judges are bound to precedents is known as ''stare decisis'' (a Latin phrase with the literal meaning of "to stand in the-things-that-have-been-decided"). Common-law precedent is a third kind of law, on equal footing with statutory law (that is, statutes and codes enacted by legislative bodies) and subordinate legislation (that is, regulations promulgated by executive branch agencies, in the form of delegated legislation) in UK parlance – or regulatory law (in US parlance). Case law, in common-law jurisdictions, ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Court
A court is any person or institution, often as a government institution, with the authority to adjudicate legal disputes between parties and carry out the administration of justice in civil, criminal, and administrative matters in accordance with the rule of law. In both common law and civil law legal systems, courts are the central means for dispute resolution, and it is generally understood that all people have an ability to bring their claims before a court. Similarly, the rights of those accused of a crime include the right to present a defense before a court. The system of courts that interprets and applies the law is collectively known as the judiciary. The place where a court sits is known as a venue. The room where court proceedings occur is known as a courtroom, and the building as a courthouse; court facilities range from simple and very small facilities in rural communities to large complex facilities in urban communities. The practical authority given to ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Ratio Decidendi
''Ratio decidendi'' ( Latin plural ''rationes decidendi'') 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). In other words, ''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. ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Lèse-majesté
Lèse-majesté () or lese-majesty () is an offence against the dignity of a ruling head of state (traditionally a monarch but now more often a president) or the state itself. The English name for this crime is a borrowing from the French, where it means "a crime against The Crown." This behaviour was first classified as a criminal offence against the dignity of the Roman Republic of ancient Rome. In the Dominate, or Late Empire period, the emperors eliminated the republican trappings of their predecessors and began to equate the state with themselves. Although legally the ''princeps civitatis'' (his official title, meaning, roughly, 'first citizen') could never become a sovereign because the republic was never officially abolished, emperors were deified as divus, first posthumously but by the Dominate period while reigning. Deified emperors enjoyed the same legal protection that was accorded to the divinities of the state cult; by the time it was replaced by Christianity, w ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Distinguishing
The ruling made by the judge or panel of judges must be based on the evidence at hand and the standard binding precedents covering the subject-matter (they must be ''followed''). Definition In law, to distinguish a case means a court decides the holding or legal reasoning of a precedent case 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 Philos ... [...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 Courts of England and Wales#Senior Courts of England and Wales, 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 Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls, Master of the Rolls and Records of the Chancery of England 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 (England and Wales), County Court, High Court of Justice and Family Court (England and Wales ... [...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, it for many centuries had a judicial function. It functioned as a court of first instance for the trials of peers, for 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 1876, the Appellate Jurisdiction Act devolved the appellate functions of the House to an Appellate Committee, composed of 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 in 1948, the use of special courts for such trials was abolished. The procedure of impeachment became seen as obsolete. In 2009, t ... [...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 The defendant stevedore's 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 plan ... [...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 him. 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 Ors to deliver t ... [...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 is a famous English contract law decision in the High Court. It reaffirmed and extended the doctrine of promissory estoppel in contract law in England and Wales. However, the most significant part of the judgment is ''obiter dicta'' 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 Clapham, 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, though the duration was not specified and no ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
.png "Click for more on -> Common Law")
