The statement seems at first glance to offer a much generalised and often contested view of the separation of powers embodied in constitutional theory. That is to say that Parliament makes laws and the judiciary as slaves to the rules, should simply apply them to a particular case. This perhaps is what 'ought' to happen, according to the fundamental nature of rules and the impression that word 'rule' renders; i.e. that following a particular …
showed first 75 words of 1945 total

showed last 75 words of 1945 total
…ncept of Law, Clarendon Press 1961 [7] re: Lord Denning MR, Shaw L.J, Sir George Baker; in Davis v Johnson declared themselves not bound by earlier decisions of the Court in B v B and Cantliff v Jenkins. [8] Cunning L.J Bruce in the above case deemed himself bound by the previous courts decision in respect of the two cases cited above. [9] Davis v Johnson 1978 1 ALL ER 1132 [10] Farrell v Alexender 1976 Q.B 345 Scarman L.J commenting.