Understanding the Maintenance of Capital Doctrine

This assignment delves into the concept of the maintenance of capital doctrine in company law. It examines the history of this doctrine, outlining its development within common law. The benefits of adhering to the doctrine are explored, emphasizing its role in promoting consistency, fairness, and predictability within legal proceedings. Additionally, the assignment identifies exceptions to the doctrine, such as inconsistencies with higher court decisions or situations deemed unfair by law.

Company law
1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART 2............................................................................................................................................3
Maintenance of capital doctrine.......................................................................................................3
History of Doctrine......................................................................................................................3
Benefits of the Doctrine...............................................................................................................3
Exceptions to the Doctrine...........................................................................................................4
REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................................5
2

PART 2
MAINTENANCE OF CAPITAL DOCTRINE
History of Doctrine
Doctrine is considered as framework, set of rules and steps that is established by means
of precedent within the common law with which the judgment can be assessed in the provided
legal case (Kerr, 2009). Doctrine emerges in case when the judge is making ruling and where the
procedure is outlined and employed and also opportunity is offered to the like cases. When more
judges makes utilization of the procedure then soon it becomes introduced as de facto method
towards making decision on like situations (Grudem, 2009). Doctrine reflects that court needs to
comply with judicial decisions in earlier situation when similar questions take place prior it in
subsequent matters. In strict terms this can be stated that not doctrine possess greater authority
but in some cases courts has binding by earlier cases decided.
Benefits of the Doctrine
Doctrine is considered as the one wherein the judge refer back to the earlier decisions in
order to assist in deciding upon the similar cases in which the law as well as facts are not same.
Doctrine in itself concerns with the influence as well as value of the decisions that are taken in
past and prior legal experience. The major principle on which the doctrine depends is that
hierarchy of the courts is required in case it needs to be operated. The major benefit of such is
that it assist with the questions associated with predictability as there is rigidity followed in the
judicial precedent (Klein, 2007). Such results in consistency as well as fairness wherein similar
cases are deal with in same manner. Such fairness is significant as there is principle which needs
to be assessed by all towards the justice and the courts. Another major benefit of doctrine is
related with time saving. This is due to the reason that law is being found in the cases that set
precedent and further the decisions are determined in the decisions of the senior courts within the
hierarchy. The doctrine performs in an effective manner within most parts as it offers stability
and consistency within the legal system (Minkov and Hofstede, 2011). The parties that involved
in the trials as well as hearing can make determination that decisions are developed on the basis
of precedents rather than personal view or arbitrary judgments. The development of the
3

precedents is being done by the senior judges within the higher courts that offers them authority
along with the experience (Doctrine, 2017).
Exceptions to the Doctrine
The exceptions to the doctrine is in case when there is inconsistency with the decision's
of higher court. Further it has another exception that relates with one that is wrong in law. It has
been assessed that all the cases that have inconsistent decisions are not considered as base in
future of course of time (Shepherd, 2015). Thus in such case new decisions are being developed
in relation with the case. Along with this doctrine is not applied in situation when things
performed are not fair as per law. These are also not taken into account when making decisions
in future course of time.
4

REFERENCES
Journals and Books
Grudem, W.A., 2009. Systematic theology: An introduction to biblical doctrine. Harper Collins.
Kerr, O.S., 2009. The case for the third-party doctrine. Michigan law review, pp.561-601.
Klein, N., 2007. The shock doctrine: The rise of disaster capitalism. Macmillan.
Minkov, M. and Hofstede, G., 2011. The evolution of Hofstede's doctrine. Cross Cultural
Management: An International Journal. 18(1). pp.10-20.
Shepherd, G.M., 2015. Foundations of the neuron doctrine. Oxford University Press.
Online
Doctrine. 2017. [Online]. Available through: <http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Judicial-
precedent.php>. [Accessed on 22nd May 2017].
5