Paper Example on Doctrine of Precedent

Does the Northern Territory Supreme Court Have to Follow This Decision?

Regarding the Kakavas vs. Crown Melbourne Ltd. (2013), the question of whether the Northern Territory Supreme Court should follow this decision depending on various factors related to the case in question. As a matter of answer, the Northern Territory Supreme Court can either support or refuse to follow such decisions. Various factors can influence the conclusion of the Supreme Court to follow such judgments. Undeniably, the facts of the case were reasonably complex, being concerned with several dealings between the appellant and the respondents over some years. The number of the ancillary events and issues that might have contributed to the alleged damages are further considered (Seear, 2015). Undeniably, the judgment of the High Court, in this case, presents a description of all the transactions that occurred between Mr Kakavas and Crown Limited and therefore being perceived as the decisions of the primary judge. Broadly, the appellant, Mr Kakavas is described in all the three dimensions as the pathological gambler would also be regarded in the perspective of the common parlance as the compulsive gambler or the gambling addict. However, his relationship with the Crown right back from 1994 when the company first opened its casino in Melbourne subjected his appeal into question and can play a crucial role in determining the decision of the Northern Territory Supreme Court in making its decisions. In another reasoning, the appellant's allegation that the company committed the fraud with the intention to assist in exploiting him (Barry, 2010).

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

As part of the Australian Judicial system, it is an accepted principle of the written law that in any case a party is subjected to a distinct disadvantage because of some conditions, then the judge will automatically relieve the party that is deemed innocent of such consequences (Seear, 2015). As seen in the case, Mr Kakavas claimed compensation for his losses that resulted from his gambling activities. In his argument, the appellant argued that the gambling problem that he faced was a distinct disadvantage that provided the Crown ltd to carry deliberate exploitation on him. He further explained that the Crown lured him into the act by giving him incentives that include the rebates on potential losses that he would be subjected to. In line with the fulfilment of the doctrine of precedent, the Northern Territory Supreme Court would further hold the decision of the High court (Seear, 2015). This reasoning is based on the fact that the pathological interests of the appellant in gambling were not a particular limitation that could make him susceptible to any exploitation by the Casino Company. In reaching to its judgment, the Northern Territory Supreme Court can skillfully and comprehensively reinstate various consideration, which implies that several factors have to be applied to facilitate the determination of whether the conduct was deliberate within the meaning of the "written law". However, in line with the evidence placed before the jury, the Supreme Court will likely to exercise the doctrine of precedent and thereby holding the decisions made by the judges previously. The Supreme Court will keep that the relevant issue, in this case, revolved around whether or not the Casino deliberate involved in the activities that intended to exploit him (Howard Jr, 2014).

All aspects of the relationship that existed between the appellant and the Crown may further propel the Northern Territory Supreme Court to embrace the doctrine of precedent. In the similar occasion that the High Court did, the Supreme Court is likely to observe various facts such as lack of proper factual foundations that differentiated the appellant's actions with the Casino, considering his status as a known gambler who had made huge profits. Secondly, as established by the High Court, it is justified to mention that Mr Kakavas did not suffer from a constant compulsion to return to the casino.

What Would Be Required for This Decision to Be Overruled?

According to Vines (2013), overruling a precedent refers to a situation whereby a superior court is involved in the nullification of the previous decision and judgments as a precedent by a constitutionally valid statute by the same court of a lower hierarchy or by a ranking court that establishes a different rule of law. Various factors can influence the decision of the court to exercise overrule. In the view of Vines (2013), this process can be conducted when the court considers that the previous rule of law was not carried out appropriately or adequately applied. In such circumstances, the next court usually finds the rule of law encompassed within the last decidendi ratio no longer useful or desirable. Secondly, overruling can be made when the court considers the original rule flawed from the beginning of the hearing. When the previous precedents conflict with a lower decision that is found to be considered reasonable, the court through the judges may decide to overrule the precedent. Moreover, various reports have established that when the rule or a decision consistently results in unjust outcomes or subjects the judicial system to unnecessary burden, the court may decide to adopt the overrule technique.

How the Australian Courts Employ the Doctrine of Precedent in its Decisions

As part of its role in the development of the Australian Law, the High Court can exercise both the original jurisdiction as well as the appellate jurisdiction (Bigwood, 2013). The High Court is the final court that has the exclusive ability to interpret the common law for the entire nation, not just the territory from which the matter emanated from. In this way, therefore, the court has the powers to develop the common law consistently across all the territories in Australia. This role, in addition to its constitutional interpretation, is its significant primary mandate. As part of its appellate jurisdiction role, this role is clearly defined under the section 73 of the Australian Constitution. The court has the powers to hear appeals from the Supreme Courts of the states and territories, any federal courts or the court exercising federal jurisdiction and the decisions made by one or more justice exercises the original court jurisdiction. The Northern Territory Supreme Court must, therefore, follow the decisions of the High Court of Australia based on the fact that they are obliged to follow the original jurisdiction of the High Court, which is also the matters previously heard within the same court.

As Schreuer and Weiniger (2008) reports, the doctrine of precedent is a fundamental constraint on the judicial judgments and decision-making in the Australian courts. The idea behind this principle is that in the process of making their decisions, the judges are obliged to pay proper respect to the past judicial decisions made by other judges (Gerhardt, 2011). Sometimes, this implies that the judges are bound to apply the reasoning of other judges or fellows' past decisions when deciding the cases that are similar having related consequences as well as those that have similar facts. It is important to note that the moral value of the doctrine of precedent aligns itself with the manner it serves the political ideal of the rule of law.

According to this ideal, the state institutions such as the courts of law must be determined or strive towards ensuring that the law is developed and applied through the consideration of a consistent and predictable manner. In this way, therefore, the citizens may order the affairs with confidence as part of their rights and duties (Schreuer and Weiniger, 2008). Concerning the manner in which the Australian courts employ the doctrine of precedent in reaching their decisions, it is important to note that the precedent requires the courts to treat the "like cases alike". This implies that in a situation whereby a case raises similar issues like the one decided before, then the present case's decision would be the same as before. In this way, the earlier case is termed as the precedent. Concerning the Australian Judicial System, the precedent offers a model for future cases to follow (Watson, 2010). Notably, it has two primary components that include the ratio decidendi and the stare decisis.

These two components are primarily the approaches that the courts can use to develop general principles and in turn apply them for the future cases with similar facts and consequences on the parties involved (Zines, 2008). Through such an application, this method increases the consistency and certainty with the aim of promoting the justice in so far and treat similar cases with likeness with much sensitivity. The doctrine of precedent has proven to be highly economical based on the courts' everyday reinvention of the wheel the moment a case is heard (McBeth et al. 2011). While it is evident that the precedent is used, they may tremendously cause limits and flexibility to the decision of the judge. The principles of the doctrines pose limitations regarding the judge's power to observe the advantages and limitations associated with each case to make decisions on their view at that time (Bigwood, 2013). Fascinatingly, the decision is perceived as binding, in any case, a higher court made it within the same authority. For instance, a judge sitting at the District Court of the New South Wales Supreme Court is required to follow the high court's ruling or decision. This forms a significant and core aspect of the doctrine of precedent in Australia (Schreuer and Weiniger, 2008).

As part of applying the precedent, the judge utilises the ideas of morality and justice (Zines, 2008). These ideas are the primary foundations of law and share may share them with the society which they are also part of. Interestingly, they further embrace the assumption that the democratic legislature does not have to be deliberately unjust. This implies that the purpose approach, as part of the doctrine's execution, is used in the situation whereby the judges encounter difficulty in making the decisions regarding the meaning of a statute, even after the analysis of the language used. Under this rule, the judges interpret the laws with the view of providing the effects to its purpose. The words of the statue are supplied with a meaning that can accomplish the statute or even the provision. Through the utilisation of this approach and methodology, the judges get the opportunity to make discoveries of the degree with which they can read each word. It is important to note that under these circumstances, the judges would not easily presume that is not aimed at making changes to the common law. In the cases whereby they are dominated with the doubt, they are obliged to provide such a construction that would substantially enable the act to operate smoothly instead than to be subjected into a severe restriction (Mowbray, 2009). The Australian judicial systems and courts are more ready than previously to acknowledge that the complex situations can arise in circumstances that involve the interpretation of the statute (Zines, 2008). In this sense, they will often look at the whole Acts, the legislation associated, and the facts that govern those Acts. The observation of the words usually follows but within three contexts that include the purpose of the whole statute, the audience to whom the particular Act, regulation and sections are addressed. Notably, the purposive or the mischief technique has emerged to become a familiar among the Victorian and federal judges within the Australian judicial systems. The method is further channelled towards advancing the purpose of the statute (Benesh and Reddick, 2002).

Conclusion

In conclusion, the doctrine of precedent is determined by the ability and...