Case Note: McGeown v NSW Land and Housing Corporation
Ⅰ INTRODUCTION
The doctrine of precedent plays a major role in a common law system and only this system makes its law by this principle. McGeown v NSW Land and Housing Corporation is a case involving the doctrine of precedent as well as the interpretation of the common law system. It is clear to the court that there was no real dispute between the parties about factual matters, however the issue at trial was whether the applicant breach the contract to cease personally to occupy the Premises. The decision of this case heightens the application of precedent and the interpretation of the status. This case note will evaluate the decision of this case and the doctrine of precedent.
Ⅱ THE …show more content…
If the facts of the two cases are similar, the decision must follow the previous case. In this case, the applicant placed reliance on the Victorian decision in Morrisby v Winter. Wallace J claimed that there were “special factors” in Morrisby v Winter, hence it is a little relevance to the present case, as a consequence, the precedent show not be followed. The formal rule of precedent is to find out which part of the facts is binding by the previous case. So to analyze a case has to distinguish the facts and the issues and compare with the previous case. The core issue of the precedent is how the law change and it is totally different with the civil law system. In civil law system, there is no such this doctrine and the judgement of the case is to find out which act is applied to the case. As a result, compared with these two legal systems, the civil law system is easy to change but the common law system is more stable and reasonable. Moreover, the doctrine of precedent supplies the legislation, and it is necessary in order to follow the president and make the law more …show more content…
Firstly, the character of the Premises is different, in McGeown v NSW Land and Housing Corporation, the Premises is a public housing so this has to take into account. Secondly, there is no such agreement between Morrisby and Winter about the “personally occupy”. As a result, even though these two cases have the same issue, the decision is different. In addition, the courts are bound by decisions of higher courts within the same hierarchy. It is likely to have a beneficial effect on the lower court, which could improve the efficiency of the judgement and decrease the apply of the cases. Consequently, the doctrine of precedent is an important principle in the common law system and most of the cases reflect this principle and also become the precedent of the future
Ⅰ INTRODUCTION
The doctrine of precedent plays a major role in a common law system and only this system makes its law by this principle. McGeown v NSW Land and Housing Corporation is a case involving the doctrine of precedent as well as the interpretation of the common law system. It is clear to the court that there was no real dispute between the parties about factual matters, however the issue at trial was whether the applicant breach the contract to cease personally to occupy the Premises. The decision of this case heightens the application of precedent and the interpretation of the status. This case note will evaluate the decision of this case and the doctrine of precedent.
Ⅱ THE …show more content…
If the facts of the two cases are similar, the decision must follow the previous case. In this case, the applicant placed reliance on the Victorian decision in Morrisby v Winter. Wallace J claimed that there were “special factors” in Morrisby v Winter, hence it is a little relevance to the present case, as a consequence, the precedent show not be followed. The formal rule of precedent is to find out which part of the facts is binding by the previous case. So to analyze a case has to distinguish the facts and the issues and compare with the previous case. The core issue of the precedent is how the law change and it is totally different with the civil law system. In civil law system, there is no such this doctrine and the judgement of the case is to find out which act is applied to the case. As a result, compared with these two legal systems, the civil law system is easy to change but the common law system is more stable and reasonable. Moreover, the doctrine of precedent supplies the legislation, and it is necessary in order to follow the president and make the law more …show more content…
Firstly, the character of the Premises is different, in McGeown v NSW Land and Housing Corporation, the Premises is a public housing so this has to take into account. Secondly, there is no such agreement between Morrisby and Winter about the “personally occupy”. As a result, even though these two cases have the same issue, the decision is different. In addition, the courts are bound by decisions of higher courts within the same hierarchy. It is likely to have a beneficial effect on the lower court, which could improve the efficiency of the judgement and decrease the apply of the cases. Consequently, the doctrine of precedent is an important principle in the common law system and most of the cases reflect this principle and also become the precedent of the future