Use precedent and the court hierarchy
Identify a decision's binding reasoning and distinguish legitimate departure techniques from ignoring an inconvenient authority.
Section Paper 1 · English legal system
Exam scope and assessment notes
AS and full A Level · section 1.1.5. Original educational scenarios about the law of England and Wales, checked on 14 October 2026. Model answers are formative reasoning, not advice about a real dispute, Cambridge marks or predicted grades. Read the exact statute, case and exam-year source where a rule is disputed or changes. A larger annotated authority bank, full unseen papers and specialist law-teacher review remain outstanding.
Before you begin
- Read a short source carefully and separate its rule from the facts
- Explain which element a fact supports and what is still uncertain
Work on paper. Try each question before revealing help, and explain why your method works.
Quick readiness check
What should a legal problem answer connect?
What you will learn
- Distinguish ratio, obiter, binding and persuasive authority
- Apply hierarchy, the Practice Statement and Court of Appeal exceptions
Find the legal reason needed for the decision
The ratio decidendi is the legal reasoning necessary to the outcome on the material facts; obiter observations are not necessary to that outcome but can be persuasive. A headnote is a report aid, not a replacement for analysing the judgment. Different judges' reasons may complicate identification of a binding proposition.
Binding authority depends on jurisdiction, hierarchy and the issue decided. Persuasive material can include obiter reasoning and appropriate decisions from other jurisdictions. An original precedent develops a rule for an issue not settled by a binding decision; a lower court cannot create a conflicting rule merely by calling it original.
Depart through recognised techniques
Distinguishing explains a legally material factual difference. Overruling changes the rule in an earlier case; reversing changes the outcome on appeal in the same proceedings. The Supreme Court treats its earlier decisions as normally binding but can depart when appropriate under the established Practice Statement approach, using caution for certainty.
The Court of Appeal's own-precedent exceptions in Young v Bristol Aeroplane include conflicting prior decisions, inconsistency with higher authority and decisions given per incuriam. These are limited exceptions, not general freedom to disregard precedent. Evaluate consistency against flexibility and identify which court has the relevant power.
Sources for this lesson
Pause and explain
What distinguishes overruling from reversing?
Worked example
A lower court dislikes a binding higher-court rule and announces a different rule without a material distinction. Assess.
Show the worked solution
- Identify the higher authority and issue.
- Check for a genuine material difference.
- Disagreement alone does not authorise departure.
Answer The lower court cannot disregard the binding rule simply because it prefers another outcome. It must apply the authority or explain a legitimate distinction; a change to the rule requires an authorised route.
Try a topic test
Choose Easy, Normal or Difficult. Save your answers and open worked review after finishing.
Test this topic →From guided practice to a new situation
Write your answer and reasoning first. Use a hint only if you are stuck. The model solution is for self-checking; your written work is not automatically marked.
Guided: Explain why a different party name is normally insufficient to distinguish a precedent.
Give me a hint
The difference must affect the legal issue.
Compare my reasoning
- Party names change across cases.
- A distinction needs legally material facts.
- Identify how a fact changes the rule's application.
A changed name is not normally legally material. A valid distinction explains a factual difference that changes the legal reasoning required, rather than pointing to any superficial difference.
Look for these in your work
- Rejects a superficial difference
- Defines materiality
- Connects facts to reasoning
Independent: Compare a binding ratio with persuasive obiter in a reported case.
Give me a hint
Separate necessary reasoning from additional observations.
Compare my reasoning
- Ratio supports the actual decision.
- Obiter is not necessary to it.
- Hierarchy determines binding effect, while obiter may influence reasoning.
The ratio is the necessary legal reasoning and may bind a later court through the hierarchy. Obiter can be persuasive but does not have the same binding status solely because it appears in the judgment.
Look for these in your work
- Distinguishes functions
- Uses hierarchy
- Recognises persuasive value
Application: Evaluate the Supreme Court's ability to depart from its own decisions.
Give me a hint
Balance correction of injustice with legal certainty.
Compare my reasoning
- Departure can correct an unsatisfactory rule.
- Frequent departure would impair reliance and consistency.
- The established Practice Statement approach requires caution and an appropriate reason.
Controlled departure permits legal development and correction, while treating previous decisions as normally binding protects certainty. The balance depends on justified and cautious use of the power, not a free choice to replace any disliked rule.
Look for these in your work
- Explains flexibility
- Explains certainty
- Evaluates controlled departure
Common mistakes
- Treating every sentence as ratio
- Confusing reversing and overruling
- Using a trivial difference to claim a distinction
What can you explain now?
What distinguishes overruling from reversing?
Compare with the explanation
Overruling changes an earlier rule; reversing changes the result on appeal in the same case
The technique concerns either a rule in another case or the appeal outcome in the same proceedings.
After trying it yourself, choose your next review. This is your self-assessment.
Your review choice appears on Today. Sign in to sync it across devices.
Make it stick
What distinguishes overruling from reversing?
If you needed the solution, close it and solve the problem again from a blank page. A correct answer is stronger when you can explain the reason for each step.