Ratio Decidendi : The Fundamental Issue

* Case Law/Precedent/STARE DECISIS – Case Law is the doctrines and principles announced in cases. It governs all areas not covered by statutory law or administrative law and is part of our common law tradition. A Precedent is a decision that furnished an example of authority for deciding subsequent cases involving identical or similar legal principles or facts. For example, when a judge is making a ruling on a case, the judge may refer back to a similar case to see what the previous ruling was to keep the result similar. Stare Decisis is the practice of this process, deciding new cases with reference

The Plaintiff contests that orders to restrain the Plaintiff’s land use [8] by Pain J in the Land and Environment Court of NSW in 2005 constituted the ‘violation of correct legal procedures’ [14] and hence professional negligence, because the case was previously dismissed by Lloyd J [5].

Analyze Luxford & Anor v Sidhu & 3 others [2007] NSWSC 1356 (3 December 2007) as follows:

In addition, Case Law Reasoning was used to determine the outcome. Case Law Reasoning is when courts take prior cases, also known as precedents, and apply these cases to guide in the decision making processes. This application of taking prior cases to assist in the conclusion of current cases is known as stare decisis. Because case facts often vary, several cases are usually brought up to expand and make it possible to have a factual determination. In addition, several cases are brought up because moral ideas and the acceptance of such will change over time. Having

State of New South Wales v Lepore [2003] 212 CLR 511, 536 per Gleeson CJ.

Clegg case is the most recent and instructive dissertation on this vexed issue. The presiding judge, Justice Hoeben, referred to the previous case of Kilpatrick. There Foster J indicated that the obligations of the Tribunal are clearly satisfied if, in approaching the question of excessiveness, it has regard to matters in paragraphs (a) and following, in

The concept of stare decisis today still serves the purpose of bringing consistency into a decision rendered by the court; however, this concept has its limitations. In order for stare decisis to be used the lower court must be confronted with a factual issue already decided by the higher court. Also, the decision of state court can only be precedent within the state where the decision was made. Lastly, precedence only applies when the courts opinion has been published per court orders.

In our world, today, it happens on occasion that we, like Hale, put too much justice on the fairness that our court system is said to have. It has happened that someone was convicted of a crime that the person did not commit or a person, who committed a crime receives too strict, or more commonly the case, a

while at the same time not talk over the reader’s head or bore them to death with legal writing. Mr. Forsythe has collected original research that has exposed new pieces of evidences about important problems dealing with the legal reasoning choices and the pieces of evidences mentioned in the people’s majority opinions.

27). By following this doctrine of precedent, stare decisis, judges are bound to follow the ratio decidendi, the reasons given, for the rulings in previous cases from higher up in their jurisdictional hierarchy. Rulings from other jurisdictions can also be used as persuasive force and argument, as can the obiter dicta, the judges’ comments other than those given as the reason for the ruling. In this way Judge made law resolves conflict and injustice by ruling consistently with rulings made in previous, characteristically similar cases. An inconsistent approach to similar situations cannot equate to being fair, just or equitable. In this way the ALS is not biased or prejudice, is applied equally to all, and ensures that the law is based on fairness and justice.

The doctrine of Judicial precedent applies the principles of stare decisis which ‘lets the decision stand’. ‘Whenever a new problem arises in law the final decision forms a rule to be followed in all similar cases, making the law more predictable’ making it easier for people to live within the law.

Part I: Overview of Case (who is involved and what they are arguing, as well as all possible theories, defenses, and torts involved)

The impact of Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1989] EWCA Civ 5 on the doctrine of consideration.

Ratio analysis is the fundamental indicator of company’s performances for so many years; it is also can be seen as the very first step to measure a company’s performance along with its financial position. Moreover, ratio analysis has been researched and developed for many years, Bliss had presented the first coherent system of ratios, and he also stated that ratios are “indicator of the status of fundamental relationship within the business” Horrigan (1968). However there are some arguments on whether the ratio analysis is useful or not since to conduct these analyses will be costly to the company, also there are several limitations on how these ratios work. Therefore, the usefulness and the limitation of ratio analysis will be discussed further in this essay, with the use of easyJet’s annual report as examples.

The ratio decidendi means the principles of law on which the decision is founded. In the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co Ltd (1892). The ratio decidendi in this case was that the advertisement was a unilateral contract, whereby, the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company made a promise to perform an obligation. The fact that the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company deposited £1000 with the Alliance Bank demonstrated intent of that promise and therefore it was not a ‘mere puff’. Communication of acceptance of the offer was not necessary in this case as Mrs Carlill accepted the offer from her conduct, in that, she purchased the smoke ball and performed the conditions of using the smoke ball as outlined on the advertisement. It was also established