Before clicking the "Check All Answers" button, analyse the explanations below!
SECTION 1. How the Common Law Works — Core Concepts (MCQ)
1. The doctrine under which courts normally follow earlier decisions so that like cases are treated alike is known as the doctrine of (1) ….. .
2. The part of a judgment that states the legal reasoning necessary to reach the decision and is binding as precedent is called the (2) ….. .
3. Statements in a judgment that are not strictly necessary for the decision, but may guide later courts, are referred to as (3) ….. .
4. When a higher court decides that an earlier decision in a different case was wrongly decided and should no longer be followed, it (4) ….. that decision.
5. When an appellate court changes the outcome of the same case on appeal, but does not declare the earlier case bad law generally, it (5) ….. the lower court’s decision.
6. A previous decision that a court is legally obliged to follow, provided the facts and the level of court are appropriate, is called a (6) ….. .
7. A decision from a lower court, a foreign court or an obiter statement which a judge may choose to follow, but is not obliged to, is described as (7) ….. authority.
8. If a lower court were free to disregard binding authority whenever it disagreed with the outcome, the doctrine of precedent (8) ….. .
9. A case that clarifies an important point of law and is routinely cited by later courts is often referred to as a (9) ….. decision.
10. Common law typically develops (10) ….., judges deciding concrete disputes rather than drafting abstract codes in advance.
Total Questions: 10
Incorrect Answers: 0
SECTION 2. How the Common Law Works — Precedent Vocabulary (Matching DnD)
- LECTURER: Under the doctrine of , courts normally follow earlier decisions so that like cases are treated alike.
- For later courts, the is the legal principle that must be extracted from the judgment and applied.
- Comments that go beyond what is strictly necessary to decide the case are labelled and are not binding.
- Decisions of higher courts in the same hierarchy create for lower courts on materially similar facts.
- Decisions of foreign courts, specialist tribunals or academic writings are usually treated as rather than binding law.
- When a superior court declares that an earlier decision is wrong in law and should no longer be followed, it is said .
- When a court explains that an earlier case does not apply because the present facts are materially different, it is said .
- The trial court hearing evidence and deciding the dispute at first instance is referred to as a .
- In exceptional circumstances, a allows a case to go directly from a lower court to the supreme court, bypassing an intermediate appellate court.
- Because the common law operates within an , judges generally act as neutral arbiters while the parties present their own cases.
Ratio decidendi – the binding legal reasoning or principle necessary for the outcome of the case.
Obiter dicta – incidental judicial remarks; persuasive only, not binding precedent.
Binding precedent – decision that must be followed by a lower court in the same hierarchy on similar facts.
Persuasive authority – material (foreign cases, obiter, academic writings) which may influence but does not bind the court.
To overrule a case – higher court declares an earlier decision wrong in law so it should not be followed in future cases.
To distinguish a case – court avoids applying a precedent because the present case is materially different on its facts.
Court of first instance – the court that hears the case at trial level, before any appeal.
Leapfrog appeal – procedure allowing an appeal to jump directly to a higher appellate court in exceptional cases (e.g. straight to a supreme court).
Adversarial system – model in which opposing parties present their cases and the judge acts as an impartial referee, typical of common-law jurisdictions.
Total Questions: 10
Incorrect Answers: 0
SECTION 3. How the Common Law Works — Reasoning Phrases (Matching DnD)
- , common law courts decide concrete disputes and extract governing principles incrementally.
- , the doctrine of stare decisis requires courts to follow binding holdings from higher courts.
- obiter dicta, though not binding, may influence subsequent reasoning.
- , a superior court may depart from precedent where justice or legal development so requires.
- , judges distinguish earlier cases when the factual matrix materially differs.
- , proprietary estoppel developed from a series of incremental decisions rather than legislation.
- , a judgment may be set aside even if the substantive reasoning was otherwise sound.
- , courts avoid deciding wider issues than necessary for resolving the case before them.
- , distinguishing and overruling serve distinct roles in shaping doctrinal evolution.
- , common law reasoning balances stability through precedent with flexibility through incremental development.
From a doctrinal standpoint — с точки зрения юридической доктрины.
It is worth underscoring that — усиление ключевого момента.
Notwithstanding earlier authority — несмотря на прежний прецедент.
In practical adjudication — применительно к реальному рассмотрению дела.
By way of illustration — для примера.
In consequence of procedural irregularity — вследствие процессуального нарушения.
As a matter of judicial restraint — в целях судебного самоограничения.
From the standpoint of precedent theory — с точки зрения теории прецедента.
To conclude briefly — вывод в краткой форме.
Total Questions: 10
Incorrect Answers: 0
SECTION 4. How the Common Law Works — Prepositions in Judicial Procedure
1. The Supreme Court may depart (1) ….. one of its previous decisions only in exceptional circumstances.
2. The Court of Appeal is bound (2) ….. decisions of the Supreme Court on points of law.
3. A case may be distinguished (3) ….. the basis of materially different facts.
4. Appeals are generally brought (4) ….. points of law rather than disputes about factual findings.
5. Lower courts must act (5) ….. accordance with binding precedent.
6. A case may be appealed (6) ….. the Court of Appeal only with permission.
7. A judgment may be set aside (7) ….. serious procedural irregularity.
8. A leapfrog appeal may be brought (8) ….. strict statutory conditions.
9. Dicta from higher courts may be relied upon (9) ….. persuasive authority.
10. A case may be remitted (10) ….. the lower court for reconsideration.
Total Questions: 10
Incorrect Answers: 0
SECTION 5
Section 5. Judicial Reasoning & Precedent (MCQs)
1. When a court identifies the legal principle that is essential to the outcome of a case, it is formulating the case’s (1) …… .
2. A lower court is bound to follow a higher court’s decision under the doctrine of (2) …… .
3. A court may legitimately depart from precedent when the earlier decision is found to be (3) …… .
4. Statements made by a judge that are not strictly necessary for resolving the issue are referred to as (4) …… .
5. When an appellate court reconsiders a matter entirely anew, it conducts a (5) …… review.
6. A precedent may be avoided by showing that the material facts of the earlier case are sufficiently different, which is known as (6) …… .
7. A decision of the UK Supreme Court is binding on (7) …… .
8. A persuasive precedent may come from (8) …… .
9. If a court refuses to apply a precedent because it conflicts with a constitutional rule, the precedent is (9) …… .
10. When a decision creates a new legal principle, it is said to be (10) …… .
Total Questions: 10
Incorrect Answers: 0
SECTION 6
Section 6. Case Strategy & Appellate Reasoning (TRUE / FALSE)
ADVOCATE: Morning, Daniel. Before the hearing, a quick note on the “Riverside Holdings” appeal. The High Court dismissed their claim for breach of fiduciary duty, relying heavily on Warren v Ellis as controlling authority.
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL: Isn’t Warren fact-sensitive? Their company structure was totally different.
ADVOCATE: Exactly. We’ll argue it was followed per incuriam — the judge overlooked a later Court of Appeal ruling clarifying directors’ disclosure obligations. That opens the door to appellate intervention.
IN-HOUSE: What about the interlocutory injunction they’re seeking?
ADVOCATE: Weak. They cannot show a serious issue to be tried. Also, their jurisdiction-shopping attempt by filing in Scotland first will not impress the Court of Appeal.
IN-HOUSE: Are we relying on any persuasive authorities?
ADVOCATE: Yes, two Australian cases interpreting similar statutory wording. Not binding, but they support a broader reading of “conflict of interest” at the pleading stage.
IN-HOUSE: And timing?
ADVOCATE: We must file skeleton arguments by Thursday. If we succeed in showing that Warren was misapplied, the appeal has a realistic prospect of success.
1. The High Court dismissed the claim based on the authority of Warren v Ellis.
2. The advocate believes Warren was applied correctly and should be followed.
3. The term “per incuriam” means the lower court ignored a relevant legal authority.
4. The interlocutory injunction appears strong and likely to succeed.
5. Jurisdiction-shopping refers to choosing a court that is more favourable.
6. The persuasive authorities mentioned are from Canadian courts.
7. Persuasive authority is binding on the court.
8. The appeal depends partly on showing that the earlier case was misapplied.
9. “Fact-sensitive” means the precedent applies regardless of factual differences.
10. If the appellant shows the precedent was applied “per incuriam,” the appeal may succeed.
Total Questions: 10
Incorrect Answers: 0
SECTION 7
- The Court refused permission because the grounds had no when viewed against settled authority.
- Given the national-security elements, part of the appeal proceeded under a with a special advocate appointed.
- Because urgency was established, the judge directed a at which permission and the substantive claim would be determined together.
- The claimants sought to clarify the legal status of the disputed rights, rather than damages.
- The defendant gave a not to dispose of key digital assets pending the court’s determination.
- A was granted over cryptocurrency traced to the claimant’s hacked wallet.
- Recognising overlapping proceedings abroad, the judge imposed a until the foreign court issued its ruling.
- Several NGOs filed addressing points of broader public interest.
- The Court emphasised that all procedural decisions must promote the of dealing with cases justly and proportionately.
- The limitation defence failed under the , because the breach persisted throughout the relevant period.
Total Questions: 10
Incorrect Answers: 0
SECTION 8
Section 8. Advanced Civil Litigation & Equity (MCQs)
Read the paragraph and choose the correct option for (1) …… to (10) …… .
From a Chancery Division judgment (2024)
“The Claimants allege that the Defendant’s conduct amounted to a misuse of private information and an equitable wrong. The claim survives the strike-out stage because the pleaded facts, if true, (1) …… a triable issue. Any counter-claim alleging abuse of process must be supported (2) …… cogent evidence rather than speculation.
Given the risk of dissipation, the Court granted a freezing order, (3) …… cross-undertakings in damages. The Defendant is permitted to apply for variation only (4) …… material change of circumstances.
The Claimants may adduce expert valuation evidence, provided that its methodology is (5) …… recognised forensic standards. The burden in interlocutory applications lies (6) …… the moving party.
Where bulk data is relied upon, compliance with disclosure obligations must be demonstrated (7) …… an audit trail. Costs of the application shall be determined (8) …… the conclusion of trial unless the Court otherwise orders.
The Court notes that representative actions under CPR 19.8 may proceed only (9) …… all claimants share the same interest. This judgment is handed down (10) …… remote hearing in accordance with current Practice Directions.”
1. facts … (1) …… a triable issue
2. supported (2) …… cogent evidence
3. freezing order, (3) …… cross-undertakings
4. variation only (4) …… material change
5. methodology is (5) …… recognised standards
6. burden lies (6) …… the moving party
7. demonstrated (7) …… an audit trail
8. determined (8) …… the conclusion of trial
9. may proceed only (9) …… all claimants share the same interest
10. handed down (10) …… remote hearing
Total Questions: 10
Incorrect Answers: 0