Report on Doctrine of Precedent and Statutory Interpretation in Law

This report delves into the significance of laws introduced by governmental authorities and the role of judicial bodies in delivering judgments. It primarily focuses on the doctrine of precedent, a core principle of common law, explaining how judges adhere to past rulings in similar cases. The report highlights key case laws such as Donoghue v Stevenson and Shaw v DPP to illustrate the application of precedent. Furthermore, it explores statutory interpretation, the process courts use to interpret and apply legislation, especially when statutes are involved. It discusses various interpretation rules, including literal, golden, and mischief rules, providing examples and their significance. The report also offers insights into the differences between civil and common law systems and provides recommendations for a UK-based accounting firm planning to relocate to Germany. The report concludes by emphasizing the importance of both the doctrine of precedent and statutory interpretation in legal decision-making and understanding the legislative framework.

Law

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................1
MAIN BODY..................................................................................................................................1
Overview of the case situation.....................................................................................................1
Civil law.......................................................................................................................................1
The doctrine of Precedent............................................................................................................2
Statutory Interpretation................................................................................................................4
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................5
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................6
BIBLIOGRAPGY............................................................................................................................7

INRODUCTION
Laws which have developed and introduced by the government authority is highly
significant. Moreover, by considering the legislative frameworks judicial authority give
judgments and offer benefits to the innocent party in against to defendant’s actions. In this, the
present report will shed light on the doctrine of precedent along with the case laws and
summaries. Besides this, it also develops understanding regarding the aspect of statutory
interpretations.
MAIN BODY
Overview of the case situation
On the basis of given case situation or scenario, Accountants UK is the leading accounts
company having main office in London. Referring the implications of Brexit, firm is planning to
relocate business in Berlin, Germany. However, business entity of such accounting firm is
unaware from the German law that is heavily codified. Thus, before moving to Germany
manager or entity of such firm needs to review the significance of English Common law.
Civil law
Civil/ Civilian or Romanian law may be served as legal system that was originated in
Europe. The main aspects of such civil law are that, in this, core principles are codified into a
referable system. It may be served as a primary source of law that is highly in against to common
law system1. Such law system entails that decisions which are based on judicial precedent not
highly appropriate.
In contrast to the civil law, benefits of English Common law system can be understood in
the following way:
1 Yan, C. H. E. N. G., 2017. The Perfection of Expert Assistant System Under Trial Centralism
Policy——From the Perspective of the Introduction of Related Regulations in Civil Law
Countries. Journal of Beijing Institute of Technology (Social Sciences Edition). 3. p.016.

The doctrine of Precedent
From assessment, it has been identified that doctrine of judicial precedent is highly
concerned with the significance of case laws. Hence, it implies for one of the principles that
underpins common law to a great extent. Doctrine of precedent may also be served as a stare
decisis or principles that judges need to follow2. In other words, it can be stated that judges need
to follow rulings and other decisions which are taken by the judicial authority in higher courts.
On the basis of such aspect, in the case of having similar facts and issues judges needs to make
decision on the basis of past rulings.
In medieval England, the doctrine of precedent was introduced when laws were being
formed and judges demand for the high consistency as well as standardization. Thus, the doctrine
of precedent is used when court is actively taking into account the case and the same matters
come before. In this, precedent word clearly indicates the rule of law which is established by a
court for the first time in a particular case. As per such doctrine, specific or particular cases are
considered by the judge for taking decision when similar kind of situation occurs3. Thus, in a
conclusive way, it can be stated that, as per the doctrine of precedent, once a point of law has
been decided in a particular case then the same is followed or considered in the future cases.
Case laws related to the doctrine of precedent are enumerated below:
Donoghue v Stevenson[1932] AC 562: In such case, innocent party namely Donoghue
claimed that snail was found in the bottle of ginger beer. Due to this, she fell ill and made sue on
Stevenson for getting compensation. In such case, House of Lord gave judgment that Stevenson
is obliged to give compensation to the innocent party on the basis of the aspect that manufacturer
owed a duty a care in relation to the product offers by it. Such binding precedent is followed or
considered in the case of Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1936] AC 85. Moreover, in such
case manufacturer knows that consumer might be injured if he failed to undertake reasonable
2 Callander, S. and Clark, T. S., 2017. Precedent and doctrine in a complicated world. American
Political Science Review. 111(1). pp.184-203.
3 Judicial precedent. 2017. [Online]. Available through: <http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Judicial-
precedent.php>.

duty of care. Thus, on the ground of the aspect that manufacturer owes a duty pertaining to
reasonable care court gave judgment in the support of Grant over the defendant party. Further, in
the case of Shaw v DPP [1962] AC 220, House of Lords found the existence of the crime of
conspiracy to corrupt public morals. Findings and judgments of such case were followed in the
case of Knuller v DPP [1973] AC 435. Hence, the above depicted case laws clearly show the
concept regarding the doctrine of precedent.
Along with this, in binding precedents, there is the existence of persuasive aspects.
Hence, such kind of precedents consists for the judicial statements that are not bindings but may
be taken into account. Example of such precedent can be seen in the case of R v Howe &
Bannister. Judgment of such case was followed by the House of Lords in the situation of R V
Gotts (1992). In this, court found and presented that murder was not attempted by the defensive
party such as duress. Further, it has assessed that persuasive precedents include some laws that is
related to other jurisdiction. In addition to this, decisions which are taken by Privy Council are
merely persuasive on all the English Courts4. This aspect can clearly supported with the case of
Attorney General for Jersey v Holley (2005). In such case appeal was followed which in turn
resulted into the existence of similar law in both Jersey and England & Wales. It is recognized
as a landmark case because in this Privy Council declared that the concerned law and judgment
is not only applicable to Jersey but also in England. However, the decisions of Privy Council are
not usually considering bindings in English law.
There are several benefits that closely associated with the application of doctrine of
precedents. Precedents help in bringing certainty in law as well as decision making aspect.
Moreover, in the absence of having and undertaking specific precedents judiciary authority
would not become able to take suitable decisions. If judges start taking decisions afresh without
taking into account the past issues the laws would become highly uncertain. Along with this,
precedents also help in ensuring flexibility into laws or legislative aspects. Decision making of
judges is influenced from several aspects such as social, economic and age. Hence, judges have
ability to shape decisions according to the changing condition and thereby indulge flexibility in
4 Precedents as a source of law. 2017. [Online]. Available through:
<https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/precedents-as-a-source-of-law/>.

law. Hence, precedents may be served as a judge that made law on the basis of practical case
situations.
Statutory Interpretation
Statutory interpretation is the process that is undertaken by the court for interpreting as
well as applying legislation and it is highly required when case involves a statue. Hence, term of
statutory interpretation implies for the action of a court which lays emphasis on explaining the
piece of legislation5. Statues of law are also known as legislation that accounts for the written
laws of UK. Legislative framework is created as well as implemented by parliament but the same
is enforced by various authorities, prosecuting bodies etc. Through research, it has assessed that
statutory interpretation is significant and required where complexity as well as uncertainty arises
in relation to the manner in which law needs to applied in the specific situation. Referring the
Interpretation Act (1978), rules pertaining statutory interpretation has been developed which in
turn provides an effectual framework for interpretation6. Specific rules that are closely associated
with the aspect of statutory interpretation include literal, golden and mischief. Description of
such rules is enumerated below:
 Literal rule: Under such rule, as per the case of Berriman (1946), statue is given with the
ordinary and natural meanings. However, there are some deficiencies which take place in
literal which in turn impose issue. Hence, to avoid the deficiency and modify literal,
golden rule was introduced by the concerned UK authority.
 Golden rule: Case laws such as Adler v George (1964) and Re Sigsworth (1935) is
highly associated with the golden rules or concept. It includes both narrow as well as
wide approach for the purpose of interpretation. In accordance with narrow approach,
court can select between the possible meanings of word7. On the other side, as per wider
approach court can modify words for the purpose of avoiding issue or problem.
5 MacCormick, D. N., Summers, R. S. and Goodhart, A. L. eds., 2016. Interpreting precedents: a
comparative study. Routledge.
6 Statutory Interpretation. 2017. [Online]. Available through: <https://www.inbrief.co.uk/legal-
system/statutory-interpretation/>.

 Mischief rule: It was introduced in the case of Heydon’s (1584), where court presented
that four issues need to be considered for interpreting statues. However, from evaluation
it has identified that scope of mischief rule is narrow as compared to the golden one.
Thus, it can be stated that for the purpose of statutory interpretation golden rule needs to
be considered.
It is advised to the management of Accountants UK to avoid taking decision in relation to
moving in Germany. Moreover, English Common law is easy to understand and not highly
complex in comparison to Civil law or code.
CONCLUSION
By summing up this report, it has been concluded that the doctrine of precedent is highly
significant which in turn provides high level of assistance to the judiciary authority in making
appropriate decisions. It can be seen in the report, as per the precedent doctrine referring the
specific cases court gives judgments. Further, it has been articulated that statutory interpretation
facilitates better understanding regarding the legislative framework.
7 Statutory interpretation. 2017. [pdf]. Available through:
<https://catalogue.pearsoned.co.uk/assets/hip/gb/hip_gb_pearsonhighered/samplechapter/ELS_C
%20and%20M_Chap%203.pdf>.

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Callander, S. and Clark, T. S., 2017. Precedent and doctrine in a complicated world. American
Political Science Review. 111(1). pp.184-203.
MacCormick, D. N., Summers, R. S. and Goodhart, A. L. eds., 2016. Interpreting precedents: a
comparative study. Routledge.
Yan, C. H. E. N. G., 2017. The Perfection of Expert Assistant System Under Trial Centralism
Policy——From the Perspective of the Introduction of Related Regulations in Civil Law
Countries. Journal of Beijing Institute of Technology (Social Sciences Edition). 3. p.016.
Online
Judicial precedent. 2017. [Online]. Available through: <http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Judicial-
precedent.php>.
Precedents as a source of law. 2017. [Online]. Available through:
<https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/precedents-as-a-source-of-law/>.
Statutory Interpretation. 2017. [Online]. Available through: <https://www.inbrief.co.uk/legal-
system/statutory-interpretation/>.
Statutory interpretation. 2017. [pdf]. Available through:
<https://catalogue.pearsoned.co.uk/assets/hip/gb/hip_gb_pearsonhighered/samplechapter/
ELS_C%20and%20M_Chap%203.pdf>.

BIBLIOGRAPGY
https://www.inbrief.co.uk/legal-system/statutory-interpretation
https://catalogue.pearsoned.co.uk/assets/hip/gb/hip_gb_pearsonhighered/samplechapter/ELS_C
%20and%20M_Chap%203.pdf
http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Judicial-precedent.php
https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/precedents-as-a-source-of-law/