xxvine
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
Hey all,

I am currently doing some common law /tort revision and also reading for the next semester.

I am just a bit confused on the whole issue of 'binding precedent'

Are judges bound to follow extracts by Winfield on Torts or is it only cases that judges are bound to follow?

Many thanks for your help!
0
reply
DarkChaoz95
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
(Original post by xxvine)
Hey all,

I am currently doing some common law /tort revision and also reading for the next semester.

I am just a bit confused on the whole issue of 'binding precedent'

Are judges bound to follow extracts by Winfield on Torts or is it only cases that judges are bound to follow?

Many thanks for your help!
Binding precedents is where a court is bound by a previous superior court decision on a same/similar matter. So with this in mind, I believe its just cases that judges are bound to follow.
1
reply
Bitesizelaw
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 years ago
#3
(Original post by xxvine)
Hey all,

I am currently doing some common law /tort revision and also reading for the next semester.

I am just a bit confused on the whole issue of 'binding precedent'

Are judges bound to follow extracts by Winfield on Torts or is it only cases that judges are bound to follow?

Many thanks for your help!
The views of academics can be persuasive, but not binding.
0
reply
xxvine
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#4
(Original post by Bitesizelaw)
The views of academics can be persuasive, but not binding.
Thanks for the reply

So basically what I am confused about is for example Winfield on Torts is not actually binding? is it only cases that are binding in the term 'binding precedent'.
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 years ago
#5
(Original post by xxvine)
Thanks for the reply

So basically what I am confused about is for example Winfield on Torts is not actually binding? is it only cases that are binding in the term 'binding precedent'.
You're correct.

Winfield is only persuasive. And judges will not just consider the opinion of Winfield and leave it at that; they will, as it is only persuasive, critically analyse the commentary and also compare it with other leading texts.
0
reply
xxvine
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#6
(Original post by Notoriety)
You're correct.

Winfield is only persuasive. And judges will not just consider the opinion of Winfield and leave it at that; they will, as it is only persuasive, critically analyse the commentary and also compare it with other leading texts.
Thank-you very much. I get it, well I hope I do!
0
reply
xxvine
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#7
(Original post by Notoriety)
You're correct.

Winfield is only persuasive. And judges will not just consider the opinion of Winfield and leave it at that; they will, as it is only persuasive, critically analyse the commentary and also compare it with other leading texts.
I am doing some reading the differnece on standard of proof in criminal and civil cases. Why is there a difference?
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 years ago
#8
(Original post by xxvine)
I am doing some reading the differnece on standard of proof in criminal and civil cases. Why is there a difference?
Taking someone's liberty is more serious than taking a couple grand off them. Hence we have Blackstone's Ratio, which demonstrates the extreme bias our legal system should have towards liberty.

But I detest criminal law, so others will have to give a more detailed response.
0
reply
xxvine
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#9
(Original post by Notoriety)
Taking someone's liberty is more serious than taking a couple grand off them. Hence we have Blackstone's Ratio, which demonstrates the extreme bias our legal system should have towards liberty.

But I detest criminal law, so others will have to give a more detailed response.
I am trying to understand the diffrence between standards of proof in a criminal case vs a civil case and why is there a differene. It is part of my research but i cannot find it any book where it explains it well.
0
reply
xxvine
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#10
(Original post by DarkChaoz95)
Binding precedents is where a court is bound by a previous superior court decision on a same/similar matter. So with this in mind, I believe its just cases that judges are bound to follow.
An example of binding precedent will be the house of lords decisions are binding on court of appeal and high court right?
0
reply
DarkChaoz95
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 years ago
#11
(Original post by xxvine)
An example of binding precedent will be the house of lords decisions are binding on court of appeal and high court right?
Correct.
0
reply
xxvine
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#12
(Original post by DarkChaoz95)
Correct.
Are there any rare circumstances when binding precdent does not occur?
0
reply
BlueStripedTiger
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#13
Report 2 years ago
#13
(Original post by xxvine)
Are there any rare circumstances when binding precdent does not occur?
A lower court would always be bound by the decisions of a higher court with the same facts.
However, the Supreme Court doesn’t bind itself and can depart from its previous decisions.
Its also possible for a lower court to distinguish a case and therefore it wouldn’t have to follow the precedent. This is where the material facts of the case are different enough that following the precedent would result in an unjust result.
0
reply
DarkChaoz95
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 years ago
#14
(Original post by xxvine)
Are there any rare circumstances when binding precdent does not occur?
overuling - where a higher court departs from a lower court decision and so the previous decision is no longer binding.

Reversing - where a higher court overturns a decision of a lower court on appeal.

Distinguishing - case facts are so different that previous decision isnt binding.
0
reply
xxvine
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#15
Thankyou^^^^
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How are you feeling now you've started university?

I'm loving it! (57)
14.65%
I'm enjoying it but I'm still settling in (98)
25.19%
I'm a bit unsure (67)
17.22%
I'm finding things difficult (133)
34.19%
Something else (let us know in the thread!) (34)
8.74%

Watched Threads

View All