Ratio Decidendi in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • DPP for Northern Ireland v Lynch
    • House of Lords
    • 12 Mar 1975

    It will not do to claim that judges have the duty—call it the privilege —of seeing to it that the common law expands and contracts to meet what the judges conceive to be the requirements of modern society. Modern society rightly prefers to exercise that function for itself, and this it conveniently does through those who represent it in Parliament.

  • Fraser v B. N. Furman (Productions) Ltd, Miller Smith & Partners (A Firm) Third Party
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 10 May 1967

    In other words, it is not enough that the employer's omission to take any particular precautions to avoid accidents should be negligent; it must be at least reckless, that is to say, made with actual recognition by the Insured himself that a danger exists, not caring whether or not it is averted.

  • Bilta (UK) Ltd (in Liquidation) v Nazir
    • Supreme Court
    • 22 Abr 2015

    We conclude that Stone & Rolls should be regarded as a case which has no majority ratio decidendi. It stands as authority for the point which it decided, namely that on the facts of that case no claim lay against the auditors, but nothing more.

  • Brooks v Metropolitan Police Commisioner
    • House of Lords
    • 21 Abr 2005

    Whilst focusing on investigating crime, and the arrest of suspects, police officers would in practice be required to ensure that in every contact with a potential witness or a potential victim time and resources were deployed to avoid the risk of causing harm or offence. Such legal duties would tend to inhibit a robust approach in assessing a person as a possible suspect, witness or victim.

  • D & F Estates Ltd v Church Commissioners for England
    • House of Lords
    • 14 Jul 1988

    If the same principle applies in the field of real property to the liability of the builder of a permanent structure which is dangerously defective, that liability can only arise if the defect remains hidden until the defective structure causes personal injury or damage to property other than the structure itself.

  • The Director of the Serious Fraud Office v Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 05 Set 2018

    We can fully accept that the Court of Appeal could have decided Three Rivers (No. 5) on the simple basis that Freshfields' client was the BIU (not the Bank), and the documents had been prepared by the Bank (not the BIU), so that the position of the particular Bank employee who had prepared them was irrelevant to the question of legal advice privilege. We do not, however, think that, fairly read, that was the Court of Appeal's reasoning.

  • Bremer Vulkan Schiffbau und Maschinenfabrik v South India Shipping Corporation Ltd
    • House of Lords
    • 22 Ene 1981

    For failure to apply for such directions before so much time had elapsed that there was a risk that a fair trial of the dispute would not be possible, both claimant and respondent were in my view in breach of their contractual obligations to one another; and neither can rely upon the other's breach as giving him a right to treat the primary obligations of each to continue with the reference as brought to an end.

See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT