The doctrine of judicial precedent* refers to the process by which judges follow previously decided cases.

Courts at the top of the hierarchy are of more significance so their decisions carry greater legal weight than lower or inferior court decisions. In the UK, the House of Lords binds lower courts, but not itself. Even though its ability to depart from previous decisions is wide it uses this power with great discretion, following guidelines laid out in the Practice Statement Judicial Precedent of 1966. The doctrine of judicial precedent2 is concerned with the importance of case law in our system. It is really the lawyers term for legal experience. We all tend to repeat things we have done before, law is essentially no different. If one case has decided a point of law then it is logical that solution will be looked in the future. The term precedent is an implication that what was done before should be done againthat a starting point in trying to solve a problem is to see what examples exist where this (or similar) problems have been tackled before. The doctrine of precedent, or stare decisis2, lies at the heart of the English legal system. The doctrine refers to the fact that within the hierarchical structure of the English courts, a decision of a higher court will be binding on a lower court that it in that hierarchy. In general terms this means that when judges try cases they will check to see if a similar situation has come before a court previously. If the precedent was set by a court of equal or higher status to the court deciding the new case, then the judge in the present case should follow the rule of law established in the earlier case. Where the precedent is from a lower court in the hierarchy, the judge in the new case may not follow but will certainly consider it. It is noted that the doctrine of precedent depends for its operation upon the underlying principle that the courts form a hierarchy with each court standing in a definite position in relation to every other court. The structure of this hierarchy must now be considered for the purposes if the doctrine of precedent. Decisions of the highest courts are binding on lower courts. In the case of Donoghue v Stevenson5, Stevenson manufactured the ginger beer and sell to the caf in Paisley. Donoghue is the shop assistant who meets his friend in the cafe. He bought the ginger beer to have share with his friends. When Donoghue drank, he found there is remaining of decomposing snail in the bottle. He shock, and got food poisoning. So, Donoghue was take action to sue the manufacturer, Stevenson. The chance for Donoghue sued for win was low. It is because there is no contract, so there could not be breach. However, The Court said that the Stevenson has to take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that would be reasonably likely to injure anybody who might be affected by them. There was an exit duty of cases independent is each cases. Judicial precedent refers to the sources of law where past decisions made by judges create law for future judges to follow. The English system of precedent is based on stare decisis, which translated from Latin loosely means "To stand by what has been decided". Stare decisis provides fairness and certainty in the law. It is divided into two parts: ratio decidendi and obiter dicta. Ratio decidendi are the principles of law that a judge has used to come to the decision at the end of a case, which is outlined in his speech. Ratio decidendi loosely means "Any rule expressed or implied by the judge as a necessary step in reaching his conclusion". Obiter dicta refers to "the other things said" by the judges and does not have to be followed by future judges. An example of this may include what the judge's decision would have been if the facts were different but does not have to followed as it is not binding precedent. It is often difficult to distinguish between ratio decidendi and obiter dicta as the judgement is usually in a continuous form, without

The law of Malaysia is mainly based on the common law legal system that means that English law forms part of the laws of Malaysia. In Article 160 of the Federal Constitution states the definition of law which includes the common law in so far as it is in operation in the Federation or any part thereof that concerns the extent to which the English law is applicable in Malaysia. In the Section 3 of the Civil Law Act 1956 (Act 67) (Revised 1972) gives the meaning of the English law which means the common law of England and the rules of equity and, in prescribed circumstances, English statutes. The common law is the body of rule developed by the old common law courts - Court of Exchequer, Court of Common Pleas and Court of Kings Bench that distinct from the old Court of Chancery and were extinct todays world. Before Norman Conquest in 1066, the common law was applied in England and based essentially on customs common throughout England in contrast to local customs. The common law is the unwritten or unenacted law of England and it based solely on decisions of the courts. Equity means fairness and is the body of rules developed first by the Lord Chancellor and by the old Court of Chancery in the end of the fifteenth century. Equity, unlike the common law, is not a complete body of rules which can exist on its own and it merely filled the gaps in the common law and softened the strict rules of common law. Furthermore, equity is a discretionary system of justice. An equitable remedy is not available as of right; it may not be granted if the plaintiff considered morally undeserving. The equitable remedies offered were injunction, specific performance, rescission and rectification that the major contributions of equity are the trust concept.