The legal system of England and Wales is a common-law-based system; this means that much of what is the law was an outcome of the common law rather than that of statutes. Within this ruling system lies the system of 'stare decisis', otherwise known as the doctrine of precedent. Ultimately, the basic theory of the doctrine of precedent is that all cases should be dealt with in the same way as any prior cases were by the courts and that the law is only ever allowed to change according to the court hierarchy that is in place in England and Wales.
At the root of precedent, within the England and Wales legal system, is what is known as 'ratio decidendi'; often shortened to 'ratio'. Simply put, the ratio is the proposition of law needed to reach a decision based on the material facts of a given case. Whilst this seems quite simple from the outlook, it creates multiple difficulties when trying to find what the ratio is for a particular case, therefore, creating a bigger problem when trying to define what we mean by 'ratio decidendi'. A judgment may compose of ten or fifty pages; somewhere, these are the facts and the decision on the facts as to who has won the case; it may look as though there are many possible ratios. This can be seen in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson[footnoteRef:1]. Another complication with this idea of 'ratio' is that a judge in a later case might understand the ratio (which is taken from the previous case) to be dissimilar to that of the original judge. However, this challenge can be dealt with by distinguishing the case this concept is where the courts argue that the material facts of the case are different, and so, the ratio from the earlier case cannot be applied to the present case; so a different reasoning should be adopted. [1: Donoghue (or M'Alister) v Stevenson [1932] AC 562] The second part of a judgment is referred to as the 'Obiter Dicta'. Translating from Latin to 'said by the way', Obiter is persuasive in value; it does not play a part in the reasoning for a judgment. An example of 'Obiter Dicta' is shown in the case Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd[footnoteRef:2]. A High Court judge heard a case that involved the lease of several flats located in High Trees House, Clapham. The landlord promised to lower rent during WWII and then went back on his promise. In 'obiter', the judge 'contradicted unhelpful unanimous House of Lords authority[footnoteRef:3]'. Without any familiarity of the judge involved, one gives the authority little significance. [2: Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House ...
