Precedent in the County Court
A County Court judge must decide whether a shopping centre owes a duty of care to a cleaner injured by a collapsing shelf. Two authorities exist. First, a 2019 decision of the Court of Appeal (Vic) held that occupiers owe a duty to independent contractors working on site. Second, a 2021 decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria (single judge) held that no such duty arises where the contractor was engaged by a third party. The facts of the present case match the 2021 decision more closely. The 2019 Court of Appeal decision did not consider the third-party engagement point. Counsel for the centre urges the judge to follow the 2021 decision.
1. Determine which authority the County Court judge should follow and explain the operation of precedent in this hierarchy.
Read the worked answer
The judge should follow the 2019 Court of Appeal decision, subject to distinguishing it if possible.
Hierarchy: The County Court is bound by decisions of the Court of Appeal (Vic) on questions of law. A single judge of the Supreme Court is not higher in the appellate hierarchy than the Court of Appeal; in Victoria the Court of Appeal is the intermediate appellate court and its decisions bind lower courts. The 2021 Supreme Court decision is persuasive but not binding on the County Court where it conflicts with Court of Appeal authority.
Ratio vs obiter: The 2019 holding on occupier duty to on-site contractors is the ratio decidendi - it was necessary to the outcome. The 2021 decision's narrower proposition is inconsistent with that ratio.
Distinguishing: The centre can argue the 2019 case is distinguishable because the third-party engagement point was not argued. But a point not argued is not automatically obiter; the ratio still governs the legal principle. The judge may follow the 2019 decision and note the conflict, or refer the matter for appellate clarification. Following the 2021 decision alone would risk error of law.
2. Explain how the doctrine of precedent promotes consistency and how the judge's ability to distinguish limits that consistency.
Read the worked answer
Consistency: Precedent requires like cases to be decided alike. Lower courts must follow the ratio of higher courts in the same hierarchy, giving litigants predictable outcomes and reducing arbitrary decision-making. It also promotes fairness and efficiency - parties can advise on likely results without relitigating settled principles.
Limits through distinguishing: A judge may avoid a binding precedent by finding material differences in the facts. Here, the third-party engagement point gives a genuine basis to distinguish the 2019 case. Distinguishing allows the law to develop and adapt to new circumstances, preventing rigidity.
Tension: Distinguishing can undermine consistency if used too readily - it can look like evasion of binding authority. Courts manage this by requiring that distinctions be material, not trivial, and by appellate courts resolving conflicts. The result is a system that is stable but capable of incremental change, with the Court of Appeal ultimately settling the conflict.