Chapter 5 Self-test questions

Which of the statements below most closely describes the Doctrine of Precedent?
A proposition in one case will be binding on a later court if:

It is a statement of law, which is part of one of the majority judgments of a higher court where the facts are similar.

It is a statement of law, which is part of the leading judgment of a higher court where the facts are similar.

It is a statement of law, which is part of the ratio of a binding court where the facts are similar.

It is a statement of law, which is part of the ratio in the leading judgment of a binding court where the facts are the same.

Assume Brexit has not yet happened. You are arguing before a high court judge at first instance about a point of EU law. Which of the following courts will not bind the high court?

Court of Justice of the EU

European Court of Human Rights

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

High Court (as an appellate court)

You are arguing before a judge in the Crown Court on an issue of criminal law involving human rights law. Which of the following courts will not bind him?

UK Supreme Court

European Court of Human Rights

The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

High Court (Queen's Bench Division)

Imagine you are a High Court judge, dealing with an appeal from the County Court. You are considering authorities from previous cases. These fictional authorities are listed below.
The options put them in order of bindingness- from high to low. Which is correct?
For the purposes of this question, assume that all factors other than hierarchy and the status of the judgment are equal. Note that the House of Lords was the predecessor of the UK Supreme Court.
Authorities:
I 1980 Court of Appeal ratio (overruled by II)
II 1985 House of Lords ratio
III 1990 Court of Appeal ratio
IV 1995 House of Lords obiter
V 2000 House of Lords dissent
VI 2005 Court of Appeal obiter

I, II, III, IV, V, VI

VI, V, IV, III, II, I

III, II, IV, VI, V, I

II, III, IV, VI, V, I

In the case of Re Abdul Manan [1971] 1 WLR 859, the Court of Appeal considered whether a seaman who had deserted his ship and lived in the United Kingdom for 2 years could remain in the country. The question was whether he was 'ordinarily resident' under the immigration statutes which applied at the time.
Consider the extracts from Lord Denning's judgment, which are set out below, and select those which are obiter, ratio, per incuriam, and the decision.
I "The point turns on the meaning of 'ordinarily resident' in these statutes. If this were an income tax case he would, I expect, be held to be ordinarily resident here."
II "In these statutes, 'ordinarily resident' means lawfully ordinarily resident here."
III "The word 'lawfully' is often read into a statute ..."
IV "I think, therefore, that this appeal must be dismissed."

II: ratio; I & III: obiter; IV: the decision.

None is ratio; I, II & III: obiter; IV: the decision.

I, II & III: ratio; none is obiter; IV: the decision.

II & IV: ratio; I & III: obiter; none is the decision.

The UK Supreme Court has just disagreed with a decision of the Court of Appeal from 30 years before.
What is it doing in relation to the earlier reasoning / decision?

Distinguishing?

Overruling?

Departing?

Reversing?

The UK Supreme Court has just disagreed with a decision of the Court of Appeal in the case it is hearing on appeal.
What is it doing in relation to the earlier reasoning / decision?

Distinguishing?

Overruling?

Departing?

Reversing?

In the Court of Appeal, three judges have just given their judgments. Their concluding comments are:
Lord Justice Alpha: "Accordingly, I reject Mr. Jones' appeal."
Lord Justice Beta: "…on this basis, I allow the appeal."
Lord Justice Gamma: "Accordingly I would reject the appeal." (but for different reasons to those used by Alpha LJ.)
Which of the following statements is true?

The decision of the Court of Appeal was unanimous

The decision of the Court of Appeal was unclear as the judgments cannot be reconciled.

The decision of the Court of Appeal was a majority decision with Lord Justice Beta in dissent.

The decision of the Court of Appeal was a majority decision with Lord Justice Beta overruled.

A Missouri (US) court is trying a case involving a lady from St. Louis (Missouri) who is struck down by gastroenteritis from drinking an ice cream lemonade float in the Unwellmeadow Café. The lemonade had been contaminated on manufacture by a decomposing snail. The snail and lemonade were both within an opaque bottle.
Assume that:
- she is not protected as a party to the contract with the café; and
- there is no directly relevant binding US case law.
The lady sues the manufacturer.
Which of the following statements is correct?

The Missouri court is bound by the decision of the House of Lords in Donoghue v Stevenson.

The Missouri court should ignore any argument based on the decision of the House of Lords in Donoghue v Stevenson.

The Missouri court should find highly persuasive any argument based on the decision of the House of Lords in Donoghue v Stevenson, because tort law is similar in the two countries, and the Donoghue case is very important in England & Wales.

The Missouri court should find highly persuasive any argument based on the decision of the House of Lords in Donoghue v Stevenson, because Missouri and England & Wales are both common law jurisdictions.

Quiz Content