Legal research support
Definitions
The Encyclopaedic Australian Legal Dictionary (available through Lexis Advance) provides a number of relevant definitions that should help expand your understanding of case law:
Common law
The unwritten law derived from the traditional law of England as developed by judicial precedence, interpretation, expansion and modification: Dietrich v R (1992) 177 CLR 292; 109 ALR 385.
There is a single common law of Australia: Lipohar v R (1999) 200 CLR 485; 168 ALR 8; [1999] HCA 65. The common law creates specific criminal offences, contains rules of evidence and practice and procedure, and sets out the rights and privileges of citizens.
Generally, a statute will not be taken to have repealed the common law unless it explicitly or implicitly shows such an intention: Fuller v R (1994) 34 NSWLR 233; Corporate Affairs Commission (NSW) v Yuill (1991) 172 CLR 319; 100 ALR 609.
A law interfering with a common law right of a citizen will generally be taken to be consistent with the common law so far as possible unless there is a clear legislative intention to abolish or limit the common law right: Coco v R (1994) 179 CLR 427; 120 ALR 415.
Precedent
A judgment that is authority for later cases with similar facts; a case that is authority for the legal principle contained in its decision.
The doctrine of precedent means that the decision of a court on a matter of law is binding on all courts lower in the judicial hierarchy. The doctrine of precedent plays an important part in preserving a stable legal framework and promoting respect for law: Commonwealth v Hospital Contribution Fund (1982) 150 CLR 49; 40 ALR 673.
The High Court of Australia, whilst adhering to the doctrine of precedent, has always held itself able to depart from its own decisions where required for the proper exposition and development of the law: Trident General Insurance Co Ltd v McNiece Bros Pty Ltd (1988) 165 CLR 107; 80 ALR 574.
Stare decisis
Latin – the decision stands. The doctrine of stare decisis operates to secure certainty in the law by binding a court to follow previous decisions, unless they are inconsistent with a higher court’s decision or wrong in law. The High Court is not strictly bound by its own decisions (Attorney-General (NSW) v Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd (1952) 85 CLR 237) although continuity and coherence in the law require that stare decisis will ordinarily apply (Jones v Commonwealth (1987) 71 ALR 497; 26 A Crim R 153).
Different considerations may apply to the interpretation of statutes (Ogden Industries Pty Ltd v Lucas (1968) 118 CLR 32; [1970] AC 113; [1969] 1 All ER 121) and the Commonwealth Constitution in that, although courts should be guided by earlier decisions, previous interpretations are no substitute for the original text of the statute or Constitution (Damjanovic & Sons Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1968) 117 CLR 390). The High Court has been prepared to depart from the doctrine of stare decisis where the case being reviewed ‘did not rest on a principle carefully worked out in a significant succession of cases’ and the justices constituting the majority had different reasons for their decisions: John v FCT (1989) 166 CLR 417; 83 ALR 606.