Business Law Laws versus Unjust Law

Question: Consider the following scenarios. Please note that the cases presented are fictitious. Scenario 1 The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) is giving its judgment in Express Washers v Dry Cleaning Express. The court decide that they will not follow their previous decision in Washing Laundry v Cleanaway, a case decided in 1988. The courts reasoning is that it had misunderstood and wrongly applied the House of Lords decision in the case of Washing Co v Cleaning Co, a case decided in 1986. Scenario 2 The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) is hearing the fictional case of Gough v Heaton. The court has referred to a previous decision of the House of Lords, Templeton v Grainger, which was decided in 2003, and the Court of Appeal case of Highfield v Sooty, which was decided in 2001. The Highfield case conflicts with the decision in Templeton. The Court decide to follow the precedent set in Highfield. Scenario 3 The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) is hearing the case of Gravity v Petroleum Ltd. The court has referred to two previous decisions, including Maxwell v Highton, which was decided in 2011, and Moloney v Caprell, which was decided in 2012. They are both decisions of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) but the decisions conflict. The court decides to follow the earlier case of Maxwell v Highton. Explain whether the court has proceeded in the correct way in each of the scenarios with reference to the rules of judicial precedent. Answer: Scenario 1 In the case of Express Washers v Dry Cleaning Express provides the court of Appeal provides the appropriate judgement for the case with providing the decisions and thereby the court provides the decision against the case that it will not follow the previous decisions in the case of Washing Laundry v Cleanaway. The case was decided in the year 1988 and with the help of appropriate reasoning; it had created a misinterpretation in the decision with the inappropriate application of case of House of Lords. This wrong decision was made in the year 1986 with the case of Washing Co v Cleaning Co. The decision according to the civil decisions is considered to be bounded by the decisions of the Supreme Court and its predecessor that is referring to the house of the lords. The consideration of the decision creates the conflict in this case and thereby the court of Appeal is seemed to be generally bounded by some of the expectations (Forji, 2010). The conflict is seemed to be created by the hel p of the creation of the decisions and thereby the conflict is seemed to be raised for the previous decisions taken. Henceforth it provides the issues that help in the creation of the path to follow and also helps them to consider the interest with the rejection of the decisions. The court of appeal does not have to follow its own decisions with it has been overruled by the supreme court with the predecessor regarding the House of Lords. The previous decision also helps the judge to create the new agreements for which the case regarding the conflict is seemed to be mitigated in the case of Express Washers v Dry Cleaning Express. The generation of inappropriate income is avoided with the creation of bounding by the House of the lords. The true court of Appeal is indicated and for this reason the earlier decisions are overlooked with the creation of unique direction for the judge to decide the case of Express Washers v Dry Cleaning Express. This judgement is probably seemed to be acceptable by the judge with the consideration of advises and the decisions of the House of the lords. In this case the professional practices must be obtained with the probable obtaining of the defendant rules. Scenario 2 The court of court of Appeal signifies the fictional case of Gough v Heaton. The court also helps in referring the previous decisions regarding the House of Lords. The decisions depicts the case of the Templeton v Grainger which was seemed to be decided in the 2003 and other case that was appealed in the court deals with Highfield v Sooty which was seemed to be decided in the year 2001. The Highfield case conflicts are created with the help of the consideration of the decision in the Templeton. The court decides to follow the case of the precedent as it is set in the Highfield. With the consideration of the terminology, the familiar terms and the meanings helps in the consideration of the appropriate case as per the demonstration made with reference to the case. The application of the previous decisions helps in the consideration of the differentiation of the case and thereby the particular case issues are seemed to be created with the creation of new decision for resolving the confl ict. The distinguishing nature of the case helps in the creation of differentiation for the case and thereby it also helps in the consideration of the superior nature in order to affirm the new decisions of the court (McDonagh Graham, 2013). The practice statement of the case of the House of Lords is seemed to be bounded by the judiciary rules and henceforth the regulations are seemed to be departed according to the previous decisions. The appeal that is seemed to be created helps in the creation of the appeal system with the consideration of the later sections and thereby this sections is seemed to be fulfilling the case with providing justice to the operation of the precedent. The court of appeal is seemed to be considered in the case of the predecessor and thereby the court of appeal is bounded by the House of Lords. With the appropriate consideration of the agreement of the case of Gough v Heaton, the case depicts the fictitious judgement is provided to the decisions made and thereby the truth of the case Gough v Heaton is seemed to reveal in an appropriate manner. Henceforth the appeal is made in the following manner by the creation of the appeal decision of the law lords and thereby the law is seemed to be rebuked. Scenario 3 In this particular scenario the case at the court taken into consideration is that of the hearing of Gravity vs Petroleum Ltd at the Court of Appeal. As mentioned in the scenario, the court has referred to two previous cases that included the case of Maxwell v Highton and Moloney v Carpell. The case of Maxwell v Highton occurred in the year 2011 while the case of Moloney v Carpell occurred in the year 2012. Both the decisions that have been taken for the two cases are done by none other than the Court of Appeal but the decisions conflicted with each other and thus did not comply with each other. But the court takes the decision of going with the verdict of the case of Maxwell v Highton which occurred in 2011. Now, Judicial Precedent means that a judge needs to follow a previous decision of the court or rely in the judgment of the decision in order to give out a verdict for the case on which the court is working in the present moment. It is needed to observe that the presence of the p revious decisions and their usage are not just to guide or direct the judiciary. It also plays a role in binding the inferior and equal courts when the judge and court needs to go through a process of making subsequent decisions (Gerhardt, 2008). The principle followed in this case is that of stare decisis where it is stated that when a court of equal or lower status needs to make a decision on a case that it is dealing with, it needs to note and follow a previous decision if the conditions and facts in the present case are similar to that of the case which is being referred to. Therefore once a decision has been taken in a court, then it becomes the case law and thus the inferior courts has to follow that as it is the legal process in the United Kingdom (Trenkov-Wermuth, 2010). In the present scenario the cases referred to belong to the years 2011 and 2012. But since the decisions of the cases conflicted, the court should have taken the decision of the case of Moloney and Carpell t hat occurred in the year 2012. In this case therefore the court had not properly followed the protocol of judicial precedence and thus taken a wrong decision. References Forji, A. (2010). Just Laws versus Unjust Laws: Asserting the Morality of Civil Disobedience.Journal Of Politics And Law,3(2). https://dx.doi.org/10.5539/jpl.v3n2p156 McDonagh, J. Graham, T. (2013). Piercing the corporate veil in the family division: Prest--the latest from the Court of Appeal.Trusts Trustees,19(2), 137-145. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/tandt/ttt015 Gerhardt, M. (2008).The power of precedent. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Trenkov-Wermuth, C. (2010).United Nations justice. Shibuya-ku, Tokyo: United Nations University Press.