← Back to blog

Precedent in English Law for SQE1

Part of our SQE1 Legal System guide → View the full SQE1 Legal System guide

22 Apr 2026

Understand the doctrine of precedent, ratio vs obiter, and how courts are bound by earlier decisions—critical for SQE1 success.

The Legal System > Precedent in English Law

Judicial precedent is one of the most worth revising carefully concepts in the SQE1 Legal System module. You need to know how binding authority works, the difference between ratio and obiter, and when a court can depart from previous decisions.

What Is Precedent in English Law?

Many SQE1 candidates confuse binding ratio decidendi with non-binding obiter dicta, or forget the Young v Bristol Aeroplane exceptions that allow the Court of Appeal to depart from its own decisions—mistakes that cost marks in scenario-based questions. Precedent—also known as stare decisis ('to stand by things decided')—is the principle that courts should follow decisions made in earlier cases where the material facts are sufficiently similar. It promotes consistency, certainty, and fairness across the legal system.

The doctrine depends on the court hierarchy: decisions of higher courts bind lower courts. The binding part of a judgment is the ratio decidendi (the legal reasoning essential to the decision). Obiter dicta (remarks made 'by the way') are persuasive but not binding. This principle is central to understanding the legal system as a whole.

Key Principles for SQE1

  • Ratio decidendi: the legal principle that forms the basis of the decision and is binding on lower courts.

  • Obiter dicta: statements in a judgment that are not essential to the decision; persuasive only.

  • The Supreme Court can depart from its own previous decisions under the Practice Statement [1966].

  • The Court of Appeal is generally bound by its own previous decisions, subject to the Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co [1944] exceptions: where there are conflicting Court of Appeal decisions, where a Supreme Court decision impliedly overrules, or where the decision was given per incuriam (in ignorance of relevant authority).

  • Distinguishing: a court avoids following a precedent by identifying material factual differences between the current case and the earlier authority.

  • Overruling: a higher court declares that the legal rule in an earlier decision is wrong; the earlier case no longer represents good law.

  • Reversing: a higher court overturns the decision of a lower court in the same case on appeal.

How This Appears in SQE1 Questions

SQE1 questions may test this distinction repeatedly, with scenario-based questions designed to trap candidates who confuse binding and persuasive authority. Questions commonly test whether you can identify the ratio of a case, determine which courts are bound by which, and recognise when the Court of Appeal can depart from its own decisions. Another common MCQ pattern asks you to evaluate whether obiter dicta from the Supreme Court are binding on a lower court—they are not, but they carry very strong persuasive weight.

Quick Example Scenario

The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) is hearing a case involving negligence. Counsel argues that the court should follow a 2015 Court of Appeal decision. However, a 2020 Supreme Court decision, although not directly on the same point, contains obiter dicta suggesting a different approach. Must the Court of Appeal follow its own 2015 decision?

The Court of Appeal is generally bound by its own previous decisions under Young v Bristol Aeroplane. However, if the 2020 Supreme Court decision impliedly overrules the 2015 Court of Appeal authority, the Court of Appeal may depart from it. The obiter dicta from the Supreme Court are not binding but are highly persuasive.

Common Mistakes Students Make

  • Confusing ratio decidendi with obiter dicta—remember, only the ratio is binding.
  • Mixing up overruling (different case, higher court corrects the law) with reversing (same case on appeal).
  • Forgetting the Bristol Aeroplane exceptions and stating that the Court of Appeal can never depart from its own decisions.
  • Treating obiter dicta from the Supreme Court as binding rather than persuasive.

Quick Summary

  • Ratio decidendi: the legal principle/reasoning essential to the court's decision; it is binding on lower courts
  • Obiter dicta: remarks made 'by the way' in a judgment that are not essential to the decision; persuasive only, even from the Supreme Court
  • The Supreme Court can depart from its own previous decisions under the Practice Statement 1966
  • The Court of Appeal is generally bound by its own previous decisions but has three exceptions under Young v Bristol Aeroplane: conflicting CoA decisions, Supreme Court has impliedly overruled, or decision was per incuriam (in ignorance of relevant authority)
  • Distinguishing: a court avoids following a precedent by identifying material factual differences between the current case and the earlier authority
  • Overruling: a higher court declares that the legal rule in an earlier decision is wrong (different cases); reversing: higher court overturns a lower court's decision in the same case on appeal
  • Lower courts are bound by the ratio of higher courts but not by obiter dicta

Exam tip

A frequent trap is confusing 'overruling' with 'reversing'—they sound similar but operate very differently. Overruling affects different cases; reversing affects the same case on appeal.

Want to test this now? Try a few SQE1-style questions below before moving on.

Test Yourself

Test yourself

Quick check questions based on this article.

Question 1

Scenario

A County Court judge is hearing a contractual dispute between a supplier and a retailer. The supplier's counsel relies on a House of Lords decision from 1985 that established a principle relevant to the dispute. The retailer's counsel argues that the 1985 decision should not be followed because it is outdated and does not reflect modern commercial practice. The retailer's counsel cites a 2018 obiter dictum from a Court of Appeal judge who expressed doubt about the continuing relevance of the 1985 principle. The County Court judge notes that the Supreme Court has not had occasion to reconsider the point. The supplier has been in business for over 30 years. The contract was entered into in 2023 and governed by English law. The retailer's business was incorporated two years ago. The dispute relates to the interpretation of a force majeure clause. Both parties are represented by experienced commercial solicitors.

Is the County Court judge bound to follow the 1985 House of Lords decision?

Question 2

Scenario

A claimant brings a negligence action in the County Court against a private hospital. The claimant's solicitor identifies a Court of Appeal decision from 2018 that established a duty of care in materially identical circumstances. The hospital's solicitor argues that a more recent High Court decision from 2023 reached the opposite conclusion on the same point of law. The High Court judge in the 2023 case expressly stated that the 2018 Court of Appeal authority was wrongly decided. The hospital also relies on an obiter dictum statement from a Supreme Court justice, made in a 2022 judgment concerning a different area of tort law, which suggested that the scope of duty of care should be narrowed. The County Court judge notes that there is no Supreme Court authority directly on point. Both parties agree that the facts of the 2018 Court of Appeal case are closely analogous to the present claim. The hospital has instructed a leading academic expert, whose published article criticises the 2018 decision. The claimant argues that the County Court is bound by the 2018 authority. The hospital argues that the combined weight of the 2023 High Court decision and the Supreme Court obiter dictum means the 2018 authority should not be followed. The judge reserves judgment.

Which of the following best describes the position the County Court judge must take regarding the 2018 Court of Appeal decision?

Question 3

Scenario

A claimant brings a negligence claim in the County Court against a construction company. The claimant's solicitor identifies a Court of Appeal decision from 2019 that supports the claimant's position on the duty of care owed by contractors to neighbouring landowners. The defendant's solicitor argues that a more recent High Court decision from 2023 reached the opposite conclusion on materially identical facts. The County Court judge notes that the High Court decision contains a thorough analysis of the relevant statutory provisions and is more closely aligned with the facts of the present case. The judge also observes that the Court of Appeal decision was decided by a two-judge panel rather than the usual three. The defendant's solicitor submits that the High Court decision should be preferred because it is more recent and better reasoned. The claimant had previously instructed a different firm of solicitors who advised that the claim had no merit. The claimant's solicitor submits that the Court of Appeal decision is binding on the County Court regardless of the quality of the High Court's reasoning. Both decisions were reported in the law reports. The judge reserves judgment to consider which decision to follow.

Which of the following best describes the approach the County Court judge should take?

Want to test your SQE1 baseline?

Try 100 free SQE1 questions across FLK1 and FLK2, with instant feedback, full explanations and no login required.

Try 100 free SQE1 questionsTry demoView pricing

Related Topics

Practise Precedent In English Law Questions for SQE1

Not sure where you stand for SQE1? Take ActusPrep's free 100-question SQE1 diagnostic test across FLK1 and FLK2, then use your results to focus your revision.