Skip to content
MarkSchemeMarkScheme
Sign up — no card

9084 · 1.1.5

Judicial precedent — practice questions

Practice and worked examples for 9084 Judicial precedent. Short previews only — attempt the full question in MarkScheme against the official scheme.

Worked example 1

Explain how the doctrine of judicial precedent operates in the English legal system. [15 marks]

Show solution outline

Stare decisis: Lower courts bound by higher courts' ratio decidendi on same material facts.

Hierarchy: Supreme Court binds all; Court of Appeal (Civil/Criminal) binds below; High Court binds inferior courts; Crown Court — limited precedent role.

Flexibility: Distinguishing on facts; overruling by higher court; Practice Statement — SC departs from own decisions (R v G, Pepper v Hart).

Advantages: Certainty, consistency, efficiency (similar cases decided alike).

Disadvantages: Rigidity, complexity (finding ratio), slow reform until higher court acts.

Conclusion: Core of common law — balances predictability with limited judicial law-making.

Worked example 2

Amelia, aged 30, was a graphic designer earning £50,000 net per year. Due to the defendant's negligence, she suffered injuries that prevent her from ever working again. Using the principles of judicial precedent concerning the calculation of damages for future loss of earnings, calculate the lump sum she is likely to be awarded. Assume she would have retired at 68 and the legally prescribed discount rate is -0.25%.

Show solution outline

The court must follow the precedent set in Wells v Wells [1998] UKHL 2, which established that a lump sum for future loss should be calculated using a multiplicand/multiplier method, adjusted by a discount rate to account for the accelerated payment.

Step 1: Calculate the Multiplicand (Annual Net Loss) This is Amelia's net annual salary, as she can no longer earn it.

  • Multiplicand = £50,000

Step 2: Determine the Period of Loss This is the number of years from the accident until her planned retirement.

  • Retirement Age: 68
  • Amelia's Age: 30
  • Period of Loss = 68 - 30 = 38 years

Step 3: Identify the Multiplier using the Precedent-based Discount Rate The Damages Act 1996 and subsequent orders set the discount rate. The precedent from Wells v Wells confirms this approach. The current rate is -0.25%.

  • We use the Ogden Tables (the official actuarial tables used by courts) to find the multiplier for a 38-year loss for a 30-year-old at a -0.25% discount rate. For this example, a simplified multiplier for a 38-year period at -0.25% is approximately 42.6. (Note: In a real case, tables provide precise figures accounting for mortality and other contingencies).
  • Multiplier = 42.6

Step 4: Calculate the Final Lump Sum for Future Loss of Earnings The formula is Multiplicand × Multiplier.

  • Calculation: £50,000 × 42.6
  • Final Answer: £2,130,000

This calculation demonstrates how a legal principle (the method for calculating future loss) established by precedent (Wells v Wells) is applied with specific figures to reach a just and quantifiable outcome.

Mark a 9084 question on this topicFull lessonOpen in course studio