Assignment: Exceptions to Precedents with Case Laws
Introduction
The principle of stare decisis — the doctrine that courts should follow
previous decisions — plays a central role in the common law system,
ensuring consistency and predictability in legal outcomes. However, the
principle is not absolute, and various exceptions exist that allow courts to
depart from established precedents. These exceptions are essential for
adapting the law to evolving social, political, and legal contexts. This
assignment explores the primary exceptions to the principle of precedent,
supported by relevant case laws.
1. Distinguishing the Case
The practice of distinguishing involves courts deciding that a previous
precedent does not apply because the facts of the current case are sufficiently
different. Courts may use this exception to limit the scope of a previous
ruling.
Case Law: The Wagon Mound (No. 1) [1961] AC 388
In The Wagon Mound (No. 1), the House of Lords distinguished the facts of
the case from the earlier decision in Re Polemis [1921] 3 KB 560, which had
established a more stringent rule regarding negligence. The Re Polemis case
had held that a defendant could be liable for unforeseeable consequences of
their actions. However, in The Wagon Mound (No. 1), the House of Lords
found that the facts were different because the damage (fire) was not
foreseeable, and therefore, the defendant was not liable. This led to the
establishment of a new test: damage in negligence must be reasonably
foreseeable.
2. Overruling Precedent
Overruling occurs when a court, typically a higher court, explicitly decides
that a previous decision was incorrect and therefore does not apply in future
cases. Overruling often happens when societal values or legal reasoning
evolve.
Case Law: Brown v. Board of Education (1954) 347 U.S. 483
A landmark case in American legal history, Brown v. Board of Education,
overturned the precedent set by Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which had upheld
racial segregation in public facilities under the doctrine of “separate but
equal.” The Supreme Court in Brown held that racial segregation in public
schools was unconstitutional, as it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the
14th Amendment. The court recognized that the earlier decision in Plessy
was fundamentally flawed and inconsistent with contemporary
understandings of equality and justice.
3. Per Incuriam (Decision Made in Error)
A decision is considered per incuriam when a court finds that a previous
judgment was made without considering relevant legal principles or facts. In
such cases, the court may decline to follow the precedent.
Case Law: R v. R [1991] 3 WLR 298
In R v. R, the House of Lords overruled the earlier decision in R v. Clarence
(1888), which had held that a husband could not be guilty of raping his wife
because of the presumption of marital consent. The House of Lords in R v. R
found that the earlier decision was made per incuriam, as it ignored the
contemporary understanding of consent within marriage. This change in legal
interpretation reflected evolving societal attitudes toward gender equality and
women's rights.
4. Obiter Dicta (Non-Binding Statements)
Obiter dicta refers to comments made by a judge that are not essential to the
decision in a case and do not have binding authority. Although obiter dicta
may provide persuasive guidance, they are not precedent and courts are not
required to follow them.
Case Law: R v. Gotts [1992] 2 AC 412
In R v. Gotts, the House of Lords considered whether a defendant could use
duress as a defense in an attempted murder case. The court reviewed previous
obiter dicta, but ultimately, it did not follow them in the substantive decision.
Instead, it distinguished the facts of the case and concluded that duress was
not available as a defense for attempted murder. The remarks from earlier
cases, although persuasive, did not form the basis of the decision.
5. Conflicting Precedents
When courts face conflicting precedents, they must choose which one to
follow, often based on which decision is more relevant or better reasoned.
Case Law: Herrington v. British Railways Board [1972] AC 877
In Herrington v. British Railways Board, the House of Lords confronted
conflicting precedents regarding the duty of care owed to trespassers. In
Addie v. Dumbreck (1929), the court had held that landowners owed no duty
of care to trespassers. However, in Herrington, the House of Lords overruled
Addie, acknowledging that societal changes, particularly in terms of
protecting children from harm, necessitated a broader understanding of a
landowner’s responsibility to trespassers. This was a significant shift towards
more expansive protection for individuals, especially vulnerable ones like
children.
6. Changing Legal Context
In some cases, courts may depart from precedent because of significant
changes in the legal landscape, such as new legislation, changing societal
attitudes, or international legal norms.
Case Law: Elliott v. C & L Silley Ltd [1993] 4 All ER 420
In Elliott v. C & L Silley Ltd, the House of Lords was faced with applying an
outdated precedent in the context of restrictive covenants in property law.
The Court recognized that the legal context had evolved, particularly in
relation to human rights law, and as a result, they declined to strictly follow
older precedents. This change in perspective reflected the importance of
balancing property rights with human rights in the modern era.
7. Public Policy Considerations
Courts may decide to depart from precedent when adhering to it would be
against public policy or would result in unjust outcomes.
Case Law: Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] AC 562
One of the foundational cases in tort law, Donoghue v. Stevenson
revolutionized the law of negligence. Prior to this case, the law had been
reluctant to impose liability on manufacturers for harm caused to consumers
who had not contracted with the manufacturer. However, the House of Lords,
driven by public policy considerations—specifically the desire to protect
consumers—held that a manufacturer owed a duty of care to the ultimate
consumer. This decision marked a major departure from past legal doctrine
and established a broader scope for tort liability.
Conclusion
While stare decisis provides stability in the legal system, courts have
developed several exceptions that allow for flexibility in the law. These
exceptions — distinguishing cases, overruling precedents, per incuriam
decisions, obiter dicta, conflicting precedents, changing legal contexts, and
public policy considerations — ensure that the law can adapt to changing
societal norms and legal developments. Through landmark cases such as
Brown v. Board of Education, Donoghue v. Stevenson, and R v. R, courts
demonstrate that precedent is not an inflexible rule but rather a guiding
principle that can be adjusted as necessary to reflect contemporary values and
principles of justice.
Footnotes
1. The Wagon Mound (No. 1) [1961] AC 388.
2. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) 163 U.S. 537.
3. R v. Clarence (1888) 22 QBD 23.
4. R v. R [1991] 3 WLR 298.
5. Brown v. Board of Education (1954) 347 U.S. 483.
6. Addie v. Dumbreck [1929] AC 358.
7. Herrington v. British Railways Board [1972] AC 877.
8. Elliott v. C & L Silley Ltd [1993] 4 All ER 420.
9. Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] AC 562.
