- This topic has 3 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by
.
- Posts
I have come across this question twice and got it wrong both times:
There are some basic rules for applying the principle of judicial precedent.
When comparing a current case with an earlier case, which of the following is not one of those rules?I have put:
the similarity should be a point of law and not necessarily a point of fact but it is actually
point of fact and not necessarily a point of lawPlease can you explain the difference?
It’s a matter of showing similarity of facts (in consimili casu). Historically it was necessary to show EXACTLY identical facts but since 1185 (Statute of Westminster II) – I think! It has only been necessary to show similarity of facts
Is that better?
Yes, this is better. In which case would the point of law prevail? As in the first point that I keep choosing and getting wrong.
It’s nothing to do with a point of law. The matter of judicial precedent relates to the situation that I identified in my previous post. If the facts of your case are sufficiently similar to an earlier case, then the decision in your case should be the same as the decision in the previous case (the precedent case)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.