Working+with+Cases+and+Ratios

Ratio Decidendi

 * Ratio Decidendi: “any indispensable factor in the process of reasoning leading to a judicial decision”
 * Ratio: “Any proposition of law expressly or impliedly used to reach the final decision, or to decide any issue that’s a step towards the final decision.”
 * The reason for deciding.
 * Binding -> Bound courts must apply the same ratio as the superior court that binds them.
 * If there is more than one presiding judge there may be more than one ratio as each judge may have their own line of reasoning.
 * For example, in Mabo:
 * Brennan reasoned native titled had survived sovereignty.
 * Deane and Gaudron said Crown’s proprietary right was reduced by pre-existing native-title.
 * Toohey said where executive acts to extinguish traditional title the legislative power to do so must be plain and clear.
 * In Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball:
 * Lindley said notification acceptance is necessary but this occurs through performance of specific conditions (Note this ended up being Obiter because the majority judgment followed Bowen’s reasoning).
 * Bowen said notification of performance was not necessary -> only performance was necessary.
 * Essentially, while sometimes there will be no majority decision, every case has its ratio.
 * In a split decision, the Chief Justice has the casting vote and his decision stands however no binding precedent is created.

Obiter Dicta

 * Anything that was not used as the basis for a decision.
 * Essentially it is everything other than the ratio such as:
 * Observations.
 * Application of law in hypothetical situations.
 * Statement of background law.
 * Remarks about the principles of law.
 * Etc.
 * Not binding but may be considered by superior courts -> it can be highly persuasive.
 * The persuasiveness of a non-binding decision depends on:
 * The standing of the Ct. that gave the decision.
 * The standing of the J who wrote the judgment.
 * The quality of the Ct. reasoning and analysis.
 * The extent to which the decision has been followed in subsequent cases.

The precedent is distinguishable on facts
>
 * i.e. the facts of the decided case are materially different from the facts of the current case -> the ratio is not applicable to the current case.
 * This option is open to any court.

Statement of law in earlier case is too wide/broad and should be confined to its facts
>
 * This means the existing precedent is very broad and seemingly encompasses the present situation but the judge/lawyer believes the scope of the precedent should be more narrowly construed.
 * If a prior judgment is too broad, it may be ruled as obiter dicta.

The statement in the earlier case is obiter dictum and not ratio decidendi

 * If a statement of law is said to be obiter then it is not strictly binding.
 * Theoretically this option is open to lower courts however lower courts should find obiter from superior courts highly persuasive anyway.

The precedent is no longer in accordance with prevailing social values

 * The authority of precedent does not lapse over time but social values change -> This causes archaic precedent which is inapplicable in modern circumstances.
 * Mabo is a good example.
 * This is only available if the court is not strictly bound.

The precedent is unsatisfactory or would bear an unsatisfactory result is applied

 * This is only available if the court is not strictly bound.
 * For instance, the decision may be more likely to provoke further litigation rather than resolve it.

The precedent was wrongly decided

 * This is only available if the court is not strictly bound.
 * This is rare.
 * Would usually argue that:
 * Relevant authority has been overlooked.
 * Relevant legislation or regulation has been overlooked.
 * A binding case has been overlooked
 * Essentially, it needs to be shown that there was substantial error in reasoning.

Situations where Superior Courts Depart from its own prior decision
>
 * High Court**
 * If there was conflict amongst majority reasoning -> Different reasoning among majority judges.
 * If the decision achieved has not achieved useful results -> causes inconvenience.
 * If earlier decision did not rest upon a principle established over a line of cases.
 * If people have not acted in reliance on the decision.
 * State Supreme and Federal Courts**
 * These courts are not strictly bound by their own prior decisions.
 * Generally, a single judge in the Federal, Family or Federal Magistrates’ Court is bound by the decision of the full court but is NOT bound by the decision of a single judge in the same ct.
 * However, even If they are not bound, these courts are reluctant to depart from their prior decisions.
 * It is appropriate for the State Court of Appeal and the Federal Court to regard themselves as strictly bound by their own prior decisions.


 * State and Territory Courts**
 * In State courts, single judge is bound by appellate decisions.
 * Single judges not bound by decisions of fellow single judges but they are reluctant to depart from their decisions unless persuaded otherwise.