AQA AS Law Unit 1

Judicial Precedent

RD = reason for decision
OD = other things said, by the way

Cases:
Donoghue v Stevenson 1932:
- Decomposed snail
- RD: manufacturers owe duty of care
Daniels v White 1938:
- Throat burn after lemonade
- Corrosive chemical
- Followed above RD

Judgements
- Judges decisions
- RD & OD

RD Cases:                                                                                      OD Cases:

Howe 1987: (duress)                                                                      Gotts 1992:
- Tortured man                                                                                - Dad ordered M's death
- D killed V, claimed duress.                                                           - Dad threat D, shoot M
- RD: duress never defence                                                            - M stabbed, alive.
- OD: nor manslaughter/att.murder                                                 - OD from Howe

Brown 1983: (sado)                                                                        Wilson 1996:
- Sadomasochistic, consented.                                                  - Branded gf's bottom w/consent
- RD: cant consent violent sex                                                    - NG as OD from Brown
- OD: can to piercings/tattoos

Smith 2006 (ponytail):
- Bf cut ponytail
- RD: hair part of body, ABH.

Original Precedence:           Binding Precedence:               Persuasive Precedence:          - NO similar case                    - Followed by lower courts      - May persuade below    
- NEW law                              - RD’s                                     - OD’s                                         - (Howe, Brown, D v S)

SC & Precedent:
- Top of courts    - Lower courts follow     - 1898-1966 follow own decisions (London Tram v Council)    - Law certain - 1966 PS (Lord Chancellor)  - "when appears right"

Use of PS:
Addie v Dumbreck 1929:                                  British Railways v Herrington 1972: 
- Mineshaft trespassing                                         - Fence gap, child injured
- Parents responsible                                            - Business responsible (society changed) Rondel v Worsley 1967:                                         Hall v Simons 2000:
- Lawyers not sued (negligence)                            - Doctors sued
- Duty “fearlessly & independently”                       - Society changed

COA & Precedent                                    Own decisions?
- Appeal cases                                         - Generally must follow
- 2 divisions                                              - Decided in Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co 1944
- Lower courts must follow                         - Separate divisions dont bind

Exceptions:
1. Conflicting COA decisions
2. COA conflicts with SC
3. Decision per incuriam 
4. Injustice to D/liberty at stake

HC & Precedent:
- QB, family, chancery
- Follow own decisions (appeal)
- Young 1944 applies
- COFI dont have to follow own decisions

Lower Courts & Precedent:
- Crown, mag, county
- Not binding 

Law Reporting:
- Accurate reports kept         - 19th century, privately published          - Media, papers, online
- Case name        - Court        - Judge name     - Date        - Fact summary      - RD & OD

Avoiding Precedent:
Distinguishing:
- All judges    - 2 cases    - Main device      - Material facts differ      - B v B 1919 & M v M 1971
B's were married whereas M's were separated & intended to create legally binding contract.

Overruling:
- Higher doesnt follow itself/lower - Hedley Byrne v H & P 1964 (HOL) > Candler v Crane Xmas.  Can be liability for making a negligent mis-statement

Disapproving:
- Facilitates departure from prec in future      - Judge thinks precedent is wrong     - Comments persuasive     - RD in Anns v MLBC       - HOL overruled 12 yrs later in Murphy

Reversing:
- Higher doesnt follow lower in same case         - Opposite verdict      
- Fitz (homosexual partner tenancy)      - Rent Act 1977      - HOL reversed

JP adv's

Certainty:
- Courts follow past decisions
- People know law & application
- Lawyers can advise, knowledge of outcome

Consistency:
- "Just & fair" that cases ruled same
- Two sporting teams equally
- consistency = credibility 

Flexibility:
- HOL use PS to change/overrule
- Distinguishing ability = freedom to avoid past

Time Saving:
- Precedent = useful, quick device
- Avoids lengthy process 

JP disadv's
Complexity:
- 500,000 cases
- Hard finding relevance (judgements)
- Couldn't find RD in Dodd's case 1973
- No comment distinction

Illogical Distinction:
- "Hair splitting"
- Areas become complex
- Differences may be small and illogical to distinguish
- B v B & M v M

Rigidity:
- Courts following courts
- COA follow themselves
- Inflexibility
Slow Growth
- Judges aware law needs reform (Anns = council. Murphy = builders)
- No change unless hearing case (50 annualy @ HOL) 

Track System
SCT: (below 5k/1k PI)
- DIY, no lawyers, no legal aid, district j, costs not claimed by winners, county, easy.
FT: (5K-25K/over 1k PI)
- 30 weeks, 1 day trial, lawyers used, more complex, circuit j, county.
MCT: (over 25k)
- Most complex, highest value, HC = HC judge, CC = circuit, PI over 50k = HC.

Appeals if:
- Success prospect
- Permission (COFI/appeal court)
- Access to Justice Act 1999
- Review = skeletal arguments
- CC > HC > COA > SC
- HC > SC (public interest matter) 

Litigation Adv

Public Funding:
- Available for civil cases 
- Community Legal Service

Appeal Rights:
- If strong chance of success 
- If wrong decision made/wrong procedures

Remedies Awarded:
- Compensation. (D < C)
- Court can serve injunctions/complete conracts

Legal Expertise:
- Experience of lawyers
- Correct guidance
- Decision with explanation
- POL highlighted 

Litigation disadv's

Slow Process:
- Remains lengthy process
- Large claims = much longer

Lack of Knowledge:
- Judges = limited technical knowledge
- Sometimes rely on appointed expert

Publicity:
- Civil courts freely open to public/media
- Stress/embarrassment for parties 

Lawyers:
- Complexity of law = complicated process
- Lawyers needed.
- Self rep = disadvantaged 

Tribunals
- Judicial bodies deciding on desputes
- Appeals
- Rent/employment/immigration = admin
- Professional/FA = domestic
- 1st tier = 6 chambers
- Upper = 4 chambers
- Chairperson (judge)
- 2 lay people, witnesses called
- Individual facts, chairperson not bound by evidence
- Precedents not always followed
- No fee's, self rep
- Rules of natural justice
- All in public excl. permission cases:
* public order interest
* protects right/privacy.
- Decisions appealed 

Tribunal adv's                                                 

Expertise:
- Chairperson has expertise
- E.g. employment = experience lawyer in area

Reason for Decision
- s10 Tribunals & Enquiries Act 1992
- Increases understanding

Cost
- No fee charged & no rep required
- Funding sometimes

Informality
- Chairperson/lay people dress informally
- Less daunting, friendly, relaxed.
 

Tribunal disadv's

Inconsistency:
- Not bound by rules of JP
- Uncertainty in future

Lack of legal aid:
- Unavailable for majority of cases
- Disadvantaged society members affected

Publicity:
- Cases of public importance
- High profile not always given attention deserved

Appeals Procedure:
- Different routes/rights = complications
- Diff cases @ diff appeal courts 

Negotiation:

- Low key cases, neighbour disagreements, shop/customer.
- Lawyers for letter.
- Write/email/phone/face to face compromise.

Mediation:

- Couples, finance, children. 
- Resolved? Written down, binding. Not? Court/tribunal.
- Mediator, lawyers discouraged.
- Neutral ground, 'go-between', passes messages, no opinions/advice.

Conciliation:

- Industrial disputes, employment.
- Agree? Legally enforcable.
- Conciliator, parties, representatives.
- Actively involved, advice, suggestions.

Arbitration:

- Commercial contracts, arb clauses.
- Indep arb gives binding 'award' 
- Arb = specialist. Appointed in contract/professional bodies.
- Arb's named, power to pay, private, witnesses, appeal if serious irregularity AA act 1966 s68.