I have a little bit of confusion regarding the status of high court (English) regarding its binding precedents. LSBF lectures say that high court does not bind county courts and county courts are not bound by high court as both are court of first instance, but BPP study text tells a different story it says high court binds county courts and county court is bound by high court. I checked open tuition notes and they aren’t guiding well and simply saying high court binds all inferior courts.
It’s a remote area of the syllabus because County Courts are criminal case courts, and criminal law is, as you know, largely outside your syllabus. Obvious exceptions to that comment are matters such as Insider Dealing, Money Laundering, Bribery.
( be sure to be on top of Bribery – it’s a good bet for June 2012 exam!
To answer your specific question, I believe that I am correct in saying that County Courts ARE bound by the High Court decisions – but I may be wrong! Have you checked the area on Google or Wikipedia?
Thanks mike, but county courts are civil courts and hear small track and most of the fast track cases. Multi track cases are heard at high court. So they both are civil courts of first instance. The LSBF lectures specifically point out that students make this mistake to state that decisions of high court are binding on county courts, but they are not. On the other way BPP is bringing county court under the high court. Its really confusing. this issue is not explained anywhere on wikipedia and I didn’t find any suitable search for that on google. Can anyone else guide me in this regard.
I think I should go with LSBF’s point of view, because it has got logic. That if both are courts of first instance why should the decision of one be binding on other.
Ok, but post again if DO find a definitive answer!
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.