Doctrine of Judicial Precedent & Its Hierarchy of Courts

The doctrine of precedent, or stare decisis, lies at the heart of the English legal system. The doctrine refers to the fact that within the hierarchical structure of the English courts, a decision of a higher court will be binding on a court lower that it in that hierarchy. In general terms this means that when judges try cases they will check to see if a similar situation has come before a court previously. If the precedent was set by a court of equal or higher status to the court deciding the new case, then the judge in the present case should follow the rule of law established in the earlier case. Where the precedent is from a lower court in the hierarchy, the judge in the new case may not follow but will certainly consider it.
It is noted that the doctrine of precedent depends for its operation upon the underlying principle that the courts form a hierarchy with each court standing in a definite position in relation to every other court. The structure of this hierarchy must now be considered for the purposes if the doctrine of precedent. Decisions of the highest courts are binding on lower courts.
The House of Lords decisions are binding on all other courts in the legal system, except the House of Lords itself. The House of Lor

Below the hierarchy, the Divisional Court is bound by decisions of the House of Lords and Court of Appeal in both civil and criminal cases. It is also normally bound by its own previous decisions but subject to the same exceptions laid down for the Court of Appeal, civil division, in Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd. This would mean for example that if its previous decisions conflict, a Divisional Court may choose which to follow and which to reject.

The advantages of the precedent system are said to be consistency, certainty, efficiency and flexibility. Consistency provides a measure of formal justice to the extent that like cases are decided on a like basis. Certainty provides a measure of certainty to law. Thus lawyers and their clients are able to predict what the light of previous judicial decisions. Efficiency refers to the fact that it saves the time of the judiciary, lawyers and their clients for the reason that cases do not have to be reargued. It also benefit of saving the money of potential litigants. Finally flexibility is achieved by the possibility of decisions being overruled and by the possibility of distinguishing and confining the operation of decisions which appear unsound, the latter process being particular importance.

In later case of Merritt v Merritt a husband and wife were separated and the husband promised to pay his wife ₤40 per month out of which she had to pay the outstanding mortgage payments on the matrimonial house, He also made a written agreement to transfer the house to her when she had paid off the mortgage. He made the promised payments but refused to keep his promise to transfer the house to her when she had paid off the mortgage. She sued for breach of contract. It was argued on the husband’s behalf that she should fait because the agreement was between spouses and following the case of Balfour v Balfour there was therefore no intention that his promise should be legally enforceable. However, it was held that the agreement was enforceable as a contract. The earlier case of Balfour v Balfour could be distinguished on the ground that in that case the parties were living together in amity when the agreement was made whereas in the present case the agreement was made after the parties had separated.