Ratio decidendi

Ratio decidendi precisely is a word based from Latin, can be defined as a ruling on a point of law as a justification on which the court pursues its decision. The ratio decidendi basically can be understood as a reasoning provided by the court for reaching its verdict after considering the facts of the case and its function is to be a rule of law that deduced from the facts. According to Rupert Cross, the academic scholar, ratio decidendi is known as ‘any rule of law expressly or impliedly treated

It is often believed that the relationship between certainty and flexibility in judicial precedent has struck a fine line between being necessary and being precarious. The problem is that these two concepts of judicial precedent are seen as working against each other and not in tandem. There is proof, however, that as contrasting as they are on the surface they are actually working together to achieve one common goal. Judicial precedent in its broad definition is the process by which judges follow

foreign court decisions, and are frequently cited by Australian judges owing to the fact that British is the mother nation of Australia. E. Ratio decisis and Obiter dicta According to doctrine of stare decisis, not all statements of rule of law in the precedent are binding. The ration that leads to judgement and has the legal binding force is call ratio decisis, while the supporting ration to that

may be lost and the judges must give a good reason for denying the previous precedents. The other disadvantages is hard to determine the ratio decidendi as there may be more than one ratio decidendi. So, this makes the judges very difficult to discover the right ratio decidendi. In the cases Rickards v Lothian (1913), the judges give more than one ratio decidendi. There is hundreds of judgement are made every year. The massive and rising of number in cases become a main problem with the doctrine and

The doctrine of judicial precedent is at the heart of the Common Law system of rights and duties. Judicial precedent is concerned with the major of case law in the common law system, it had been described as the legal experience from lawyer’s term. The term of ‘precedent’ there is an implication that what was done before should be done again and which mean a good guide to follow and trying to solve a problem is to see what examples exist where this or similar problems have been tackled before.

1. Introduction In the case of Gregg v Scott, The House of Lords confronted the issue of financial recovery for the loss of chance in a case involving medical negligence. By a majority of 3-2, their Lordships refused to recognize loss of chance as leading to a recovery of damages. This paper will examine the judgments of Lord Nicholls and Lord Hoffmann. Representing the dissenting and majority judgment respectively, they have presented a set of arguments that were most compelling for cases of

Judicial precedent is one of the unwritten law in Malaysia. The sources of law not only come from legislation but also from the cases decided by the courts. The courts in this context refer to the superior court in Malaysia, which are the Court Of Appeal, the Federal Court, High Court of Malaya and the High Court of Sabah & Sarawak. Judicial precedent also knows as case law, judicial decision or the stare decisis. The term ‘judicial’ refers to anything about the court while the term ‘precedent’

not directly relate to the facts of this particular case. This persuasive precedent was followed in the case of R v Gotts (1992) where a defendant charged with attempted murder tried to use the defence of duress in the Court of Appeal. The ratio decidendi of R v Gotts (1992) then formed its own binding precedent. Other persuasive precedents include decisions of the Scottish courts and those made in the courts of other Commonwealth countries such as Australia and Canada. This may be because a

binding on Court of Appeal.This means “like cases are treated a like”. Precedent may consist of ratio decidendi,obiter dicta and res judicata.Ratio decidendi means the reason for the decision.lt can be explained as the legitimate reasoning upon which the judgement in a specific case and the judges may use it in the future cases if the facts of the case is similar.Sir Rupert Cross defines the ratio decidendi as “ any rule expressly or impliedly treated by the judge as a necessary step in searching his

acting as an advocate. Where the case actually concerned a Barristers liability for damages for negligence, when acting as an advocate. * A statement of law although based on facts found, which does not contribute to the ratio of the case. These are often dissenting judgements, made by Judges who do not agree with the majority decision in a Court of Appeal or House of Lords case. Theoretically there are two types of Judicial precedent:- Persuasive