Distinguishing


In law, to distinguish a case means a court decides the legal reasoning of a precedent case will not wholly apply due to materially different facts between the two cases. If distinguishing, two formal constraints must be apparent in the judgment of the later court: the expressed factors or relevant considerations in the ratio of the earlier case must be re-used or stated to apply but for an additional fact not envisaged by the earlier court, and the ruling in the later case must not expressly doubt the result reached in the precedent case.
The ruling made by the judge or panel of judges must be based on the evidence at hand and the standard binding precedents covering the subject-matter.

Definition

In law, to distinguish a case means a court decides the holding or legal reasoning of a precedent case will not apply due to materially different facts between the two cases. Two formal constraints constrain the later court: the expressed relevant factors in the ratio of the earlier case must be recited or their equivalent recited or the earlier case makes an exception for their application in the circumstances otherwise it envisages, and the ruling in the later case must not expressly doubt the result reached in the precedent case.
The ruling made by the judge or panel of judges must be based on the evidence at hand and the standard binding authorities covering the subject-matter and areas of law cited in or plainly relevant to the dispute.
This means that a precedent will be dealt to a case with similar facts, in which a decision can then be distinguished based upon this, or it may be cited with approval but found to be inapplicable on bases reconcilable with the earlier decision's reasoning.

Wide and narrow distinguishment

Where a wide new class of distinguished cases is made, such as distinguishing all cases on privity of contract law in the establishment of the court-made tort of negligence or a case turns on too narrow a set of variations in facts compared to the routinely applicable precedent, such decisions are at high risk of being successfully overruled on the bases respectively that:
  1. The lower court has invented the law
  2. The lower court has failed to follow a binding precedent

    Examples

Balfour v Balfour and Merritt v Merritt were cases involving the enforceability of maintenance agreements. In each case a wife sued her husband, alleging breach of contract. The judge in Balfour held the claim could not be sustained without evidence of intention to create legal regulations, so there was no legally binding contract. By contrast, in Merritt v Merritt, the judge distinguished Balfour, deciding that the facts were materially different in that: the husband and wife were separated and no longer "in amity"; and the agreement was made after they had separated, and in writing.
In Read v Lyons 1947,, the court distinguished Rylands v Fletcher 1868 because in the present case, even though the defendant factory kept "dangerous things on the land for a non-natural user", there was no escape.

Obiter followed

Where an obiter dictum is subsequent followed and adopted, then the later case is said to "approve" that obiter, and the earlier case may be marked "approved", "followed", or "obiter followed".