Doctrine of precedent: Difference between revisions

There is a persistent strain of [[inhouse lawyer]] — from the [[GC]] down — whose [[behaviourism|behavioural]] response to any new idea is, “but what is wrong with how we have done it until now?” There are catechisms; refrains; rules of thumb by which young [[Mediocre lawyer|attorneys]] can ply their trade and pass other’s time: “... in the absence of such party’s [[Negligence, fraud or wilful default|gross negligence, fraud or willful default]]”; in Party A’s “[[sole and absolute discretion]]” which will work in any circumstance, will gladden one’s heart and let it be clear that your young man has made a difference.

====A golden thread running though the web of English law====

By common myth, this is how the [[common law]] became the thing of many-faceted beauty we know today. No-one mentions the [[Elephants and turtles|elephant]] in the room, never mind the fact that there are ''four'' of them, and all perched atop of a [[stack of turtles]]. You see, there can’t ''always'' have been a developed body of [[case law]]: at some point in its life, every maxim; every [[golden thread|golden stream]] running through its [[sunlit uplands]]; every famously articulated principle of [[common law]] — the whole edifice was buried deep in a great marble block, and those qualified to opine on it could do no more than walk around it, with a chisel, scratching their chins.