The doctrine of stare decisis restrains the natural development of the law.

To what extent do you

agree with the statement? Discuss the judicial tools available to the judiciary to ensure that the law
continues to develop.

Following the doctrine of stare decisis which is Latin for to stand by a decision, case law comes
from the decisions made by judges in the cases before them. It means that once a decision has been
made on how the law applies to a particular set of facts, similar facts in later should be treated in the
same way. This is fairer than allowing each judge to interpret the law differently and also provides
predictability, which makes it easier for people to live within the law. However, the courts lose their
flexibility in decision making and producing binding precedents, or even persuasive ones; like the
crown court, Magistrates and country courts, as all of these lower courts are bound by the higher
courts, such as the High Court, Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, where the facts are similar.
However, when faced with a case on which there appears to be a relevant earlier decision, a number
of ways that a court can resist its more serious effects other than following, such as distinguishing.
Where the facts of the case before the judge are significantly and materially different from those of
the earlier one, then the judge distinguishes the two cases and need not follow the earlier one. For
example, the English cases Balfour v. Balfour (1919) and Merritt v Merritt (1970) both involve a wife
making a claim against her husband for breach of contract. Merritt v Merritt (1970) is an English
contract law case, on the matter of creating legal relations. While under the principles laid out in
Balfour v Balfour, domestic agreements between spouses are rarely legally enforceable; this
principle was rebutted where two spouses who formed an agreement over their matrimonial home
were not on good terms.
Reversing allows a court higher up in the hierarchy to overturn a decision of a lower court on appeal
in the same case e.g. the Court of Appeal may disagree with the legal ruling of the High Court and
come to a different view of the law. Some courts have more flexibility than others so the House of
Lords is not bound by its own previous decisions and in some cases the Court of Appeal is also not
bound by its own previous decisions. Young v Bristol Aeroplane where there are conflicting decisions
in past Court of Appeal cases and the court can choose which one to follow and which it will reject;
where there is a decision of the House of Lords which effectively overrules a Court of Appeal
decision the Court of Appeal must follow the decision of the House of Lords and where the decision
was made per incuriam that is carelessly or by mistake because a relevant act of Parliament or other
regulation has not been considered by the Court. There are strong arguments in favour of the Court
of Appeal being able to ignore House of Lords judgments since so few cases reach the House of Lords
there is a danger that decisions will become entrenched in the law.
In conclusion, I disagree this statement because some courts lose their flexibility in decision making
and producing binding precedents, or even persuasive ones. Thus, the availability of the judicial
tools plays the important roles to the judiciary to ensure that the law continues to develop.