Legal System | Judicial Precedent
Judgment: Ratio Decidendi
Revision Note | Degree
Download
bitsoflaw.orgbits of law
Introduction
- legal principle on which the decision is based is the ratio decidendi (
the reason for deciding
) - ratio is a proposition of law which is binding
- judgment may also contain statements obiter dicta (
other things said
) - obiter dicta is not essential to decision so not binding
- Sir Rupert Cross: ratio is
.. any rule of law expressly or impliedly treated by the judge as a necessary step in reaching his conclusion, having regard to the line of reasoning adopted by him...
(Precedent in English Law) - Professor Michael Zander: ratio is
.. a proposition of law which decides the case, in light or in the context of the material facts...
(Law Making Process)
Determining Ratio
- necessary to distinguish between ratio decidendi and obiter dicta to establish precedent
Issues
- can be difficult to determine the ratio
- ratio not clearly indicated in a judgment
- old cases are weak authority as they do not state the reason for the decision
- not all the reasons for a decision are essential
- case may have more than one ratio in a single judgement
- there may be several points of law are at issue
- multi judge courts, sometimes each judge will have reached conclusion differently
- no single ratio of whole court despite a majority decision
- if no discernible ratio the decision will not be binding on future courts
Esso v Commissioners for Customs & Excise [1976]
- D, Esso, advertised 'free' promotional World Cup coin per four gallons of petrol bought
- C argued D liable to pay purchase tax
- issue whether the coins were sold - was there a contract under the Sale of Goods Act?
- House of Lords, majority decision 4:1
- Lord Fraser, dissenting, argued motorist had a straightforward contract for the coins as part of the undisputed contract for the purchase of petrol
- Viscount Dilhorne and Lord Russell, and three Court of Appeal judges, argued that there was no contract for the coins as they were a gift
- Lord Wilberforce and Lord Simon argued that there were two contracts, one for the petrol and a 'collateral contract' for the coins
- on Lord Fraser's interpretation, there was a contract, C won
- other interpretations, that the coins were a gift or part of a 'collateral contract', not a sale, C lost
- C lost