Academic / Research Career

Welcome to Academic / Research Career. Follow Programme Reader 02 — Core Concepts & Vocabulary, then practise in the learning system. Sign in and use the study header to open your authorised course. Select this published lesson. Start Course Tutor with Auto audio on: it teaches continuously, answers a typed question, then resumes. Per incuriam describes a decision given in ignorance of a binding statutory provision or a binding precedent that would have altered the result. A junior reports: "I have found a judgment of the Bombay High Court that decides our point in our favour, and also an earlier Supreme Court decision that seems to go the other way but the High Court did not refer to it." Step one, identify the forum. If you are appearing before a court in Maharashtra subordinate to the Bombay High Court, that decision binds. If you are before a court elsewhere, it is persuasive only. State this first, because everything else depends on it. Step two, examine the Supreme Court decision. Is it a decision on the same question, or on a different question that looks similar? Read the judgment, not the headnote. Identify the ratio using the counterfactual test. Step three, if the Supreme Court decision does decide the same question, consider per incuriam. A High Court decision rendered in ignorance of a binding Supreme Court decision on the same point may be treated as per incuriam, which is precisely the situation described. But apply the doctrine properly: confirm that the earlier decision was binding, that it covered the same question, and that it would have altered the result. Do not conclude per incuriam because the High Court did not cite a case that merely points the other way in general terms. Step four, consider sub silentio in reverse. If the Supreme Court decision assumed the proposition without argument, it may not be authority on it, and the High Court decision may stand. Check whether the point was argued. Step five, consider distinguishing. Is there a material difference between the facts of the Supreme Court decision and your case, such that the ratio does not extend? Material means bearing on the reasoning. Step six, check currency of both. Has either been overruled, doubted, explained or referred to a larger bench? Has the High Court decision been appealed, in which case merger may apply? Step seven, advise honestly. The correct advice may be that the High Court decision is vulnerable and should be relied on with the Supreme Court decision addressed openly, or that the point is genuinely open. Do not present a vulnerable authority as settled. Nothing here is advice in any actual matter. Ask Course Tutor to explain this step: A High Court decision rendered in ignorance of a binding Supreme Court decision on the same point may be treated as per incuriam, which is precisely the situation described. Say what you tried. Pause and try this source task. When may a decision properly be described as per incuriam? The source answer is: Where it was given in ignorance of a binding statutory provision or binding precedent covering the same question, which would have altered the result. Failure to mention an argument, or a later court's disagreement, does not make a decision per incuriam. Compare your method and result, correct an error, then continue. Use Stop to end Course Tutor.