The Role of Case Law in English Legal System

Case law serves as guidelines for the court to interpret aspects of legislations or to make a decision in applying those aspects to a particular set of facts in a case.

One of the main sources of the English Law is the case law or law made by the judge. There are many cases that have established landmark case law principles, which serve as guidelines for future cases. For Instance, the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1 established principles around offer and acceptance of a contract and distinguishes between offers and invitations to treat (Rush & Ottley, 2006, p.48). In the area of statutory interpretation, case laws have provided rules that judges follow to understand the meaning of the words in a statute. Examples are the literal rule, applied in case Whitely v Chappel (1868) LR 4 QB 147, which provides for giving literal and ordinary grammatical meanings for words in a statute; the golden rule, applied in the case of R v Sigsworth [1953] Ch 89, which provides for use of the literal rule unless it gives absurd result or goes against public policy; and the mischief rule, established in the case of Heydon’s case (1584) 3 Co Rep 7a, which provides for looking behind the statue to determine the issue the law intended to address. Courts look at the mischief the parliament wished to address in the particular statute (Hanson, 2010, pp.145-46). These principles can be quite complex, which is why many students seek law dissertation help to better understand and apply them in their academic work.

The reliance on case laws or precedents stands testimony to the value that case laws bring for the operation of the legal system. Doctrine of precedents shapes or maintains the hierarchy of the judicial structure where lower courts are bound by decisions of the higher courts (Slapper & Kelly, 2016, p.137). This is supported by the case of London Tramway Co. v London County Council [1898] AC 375, where it was established that the decision of the Supreme Court was binding on all the other courts except itself and the rational was the decisions of the highest court should be final to bring certainty. However, the value of precedent could be overridden by changes in circumstances that demand for the judiciary to deviate from a precedent when it appears right to do so. This was reflected in the Practice Statement [1996] 3 All ER 77 (Slapper & Kelly, 2016, p.143). Thus, case laws are important and indispensable to identify the law and its application to cases, but their value cannot override the purpose of justice or the proper development of the law (Slapper & Kelly, 2016, p.143). Case laws must adapt to changing conditions of the society. This was seen in the case of Conway v Rimmer [1968] UKHL 2 which overruled Duncan v Cammell, Laird and Company Limited (Discovery) HL 27 Apr 1942. The latter case dealt with the issue of whether the plaintiff could have the defendant disclose documents, related to design of a submarine, during wartime. The House of Lords held that the Crown could claim privilege of non-disclosure against the court by using an affidavit sworn by a government official. The former case dealt with the issue of whether the probationary police officer could get disclosure of reports written by his superintendent about him. It overruled the latter case by holding that the court was not bind by the affidavit and the court will determine whether or not to allow disclosure (Slapper & Kelly, 2016, p.144). The decision will balance between possible prejudice against the state if disclosure occurs and injustice that may happen against litigants in case of withholding disclosure. Similar decisions of overruling precedents happened in the case of British Railways Board v Herrington [1972] AC 877 that overruled Addie v Dumbreck [1929] AC 358 by holding that a trespasser is entitled to certain degree of duty of care, or Miliangos v George Frank Ltd, [1976] AC 443 that overruled R v United Railways of the Havana and Regla Warehouses Ltd [1961] AC 1007, by holding that damages can be awarded in other currencies (Slapper & Kelly, 2016, p.144).

The significant value that case laws holds in the legal systems could be gauged from the multiple landmark case law principles established by the courts, which have been followed in dealing with legal issues in later cases. For instance, the landmark case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100 is still considered the foundation of the modern law of negligence. It established the general principles of the duty of care in the form of the neighbor principle. It brought about removal of arbitrary imposition of duty of care and established a general conception of duty of care. This case influenced subsequent cases dealing with duty of care (Plunkett, 2018, p.38). The case of Stennett v Hancock & Peters [1939] 2 All E.R. 578 relied on the neighbour principle to justify imposition of duty of care on a vehicle repairer toward his client and also any person foreseeably injured due to the result of his negligent repairs (Plunkett, 2018, p.36). However, there are cases such as East Suffolk Rivers Catchment Board v Kent [1941] AC 74, which deviated from applying the neighbour principle (Plunkett, 2018, p.38). Even though the neighbour principle is considered a landmark case law principle, it did not earn a general acceptability. This scenario, on one hand, represents that respect for value of case laws is not consistent and on the other, the deviation or improvement of it enables attaining the overall purpose of justice based on which courts may deviate from precedents. This could be explained by specific reference to the treatment of Limitation Act 1980, general rule of limitation for action in tort (Slapper & Kelly, 2016, p.150). Under the Act 1980, s2 the period of limitation is six years for action in tort from the date of the cause of action. However, its sections 11 to 14 provide for a liberal regime together with section 33 for action related to negligence, breach of duty or nuisance in regard to personal injuries. The limitation is for three years from the date of cause of action or the date of knowledge. The court can also extent the period based on equitable reason. In such scenario, courts must balance between the extent precedents must be followed and the exercise of the 1996 Practice Statement to overruled precedent for the overall need of justice (Slapper & Kelly, 2016, p.150). This was seen in the case of Horton v Sadler [2006] UKHL 27, [2007] 1 AC 307 that deviated from the decision in Walkley v Precision Forgings Ltd [1979] 1 WLR 606. In the latter case, the court did not allow out of time claim under s 33 of the Act 1980 where a write was issued before the limitation period, but the action was pursued to completion based on the rationale that the action started within the limitation period, which cannot be argued then that the limitation period prevented the completion of the action. However, the former case allowed the exercise of the discretion to allow out of time claim and focused on the circumstances of the later case, which begun after expiry of the limitation period, and which has to be taken into account to determine whether discretion under s33 could be exercise (Slapper & Kelly, 2016, p.150).

The UK is a common law system and the importance that case laws hold cannot be discounted despite the fact that they could be overturned by legislation (Slapper & Kelly, 2016, p.137). The argument of Gavin Phillipson in regard to the case of Bellinger v Bellinger (2003) UKHL 21 presents that courts have the duty to deliver justice to individuals, but the overall legislate and administrative scheme regarding the issue of violation of rights of those individuals are left to the parliament. This argument reflects the limitation of the courts to deliver justice and not to make laws, which they may be able to do so but should not do. The reason being they may not be better equipped than the legislature. An alternative argument is that the court’s duty is not limited to delivering justice but extends to balancing between their duty to do justice and predictability in law (Kavanagh, 2009, pp.139-40). Court’s role is to determine facts of a case and apply applicable law in judgment. Thus, it involves application of the legislation and the case law (Ransom, 2009, p.2).

The continuous importance of case law principles could also be gathered by the fact that they are also referred while placing Bills in the Parliament. For example, in the case of Bills regarding legalising euthanasia or assisted dying, cases are referred by the person placing the bill. In the 2005 Bill for Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill, the Bill referred to the landmark case of R (on the application of Pretty) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2001] UKHL 61, where the court rejected argument that Article 2, the right to life does not include right to die (Great Britain: Parliament: House of Lords: Select Committee on the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill, 2005). Another landmark case is R (on the application of Purdy) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2009] EWCA Civ 92, which led to the 2010 policy document by DPP around terms associated with the likelihood of prosecution in case of assisted dying. These cases are referred in argument in favour of assisted dying and are also examples for rejecting legalising assisted dying.

Case law as a source of law cannot be entirely termed certain. The character of the case law and the manner in which courts establish rules and principles in their judgements is not constant. It keeps adapting to the changing social and political conditions. However, the importance cannot be discounted as case laws continuously shape the path towards reading the overall justice goals of legislation.

Take a deeper dive into The Rise of Regional Trade Agreements with our additional resources.

Bibliography

Addie v Dumbreck [1929] AC 358

Bellinger v Bellinger (2003) UKHL 21

British Railways Board v Herrington [1972] AC 877

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1

Conway v Rimmer [1968] UKHL 2

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100

Duncan v Cammell, Laird and Company Limited (Discovery) HL 27 Apr 1942

East Suffolk Rivers Catchment Board v Kent [1941] AC 74

Great Britain: Parliament: House of Lords: Select Committee on the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill, 2005. Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill (HL). Great Britain: Parliament: House of Lords: Select Committee on the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill.

Hanson, S., 2010. Legal Method, Skills and Reasoning. Routledge-Cavendish.

Horton v Sadler [2006] UKHL 27, [2007] 1 AC 307

Kavanagh, A., 2009. Constitutional Review under the UK Human Rights Act. Cambridge University Press.

London Tramway Co. v London County Council [1898] AC 375

Miliangos v George Frank Ltd, [1976] AC 443

Plunkett, J., 2018. The Duty of Care in Negligence. Hart Publishing.

Ransom, W., 2009. Legal Sysrem: a world view. In W.D.S. McLay, ed. Clinical Forensic Medicine. Cambridge University Press.

R (on the application of Pretty) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2001] UKHL 61

R (on the application of Purdy) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2009] EWCA Civ 92

R v Sigsworth [1953] Ch 89,Heydon’s case (1584) 3 Co Rep 7a

R v United Railways of the Havana and Regla Warehouses Ltd [1961] AC 1007

Rush, J. & Ottley, M., 2006. Business Law. Thomson Learning.

Slapper, G. & Kelly, D., 2016. The English Legal System. Routledge.

Stennett v Hancock & Peters [1939] 2 All E.R. 578

Walkley v Precision Forgings Ltd [1979] 1 WLR 606