Powered by Lexis+®
Related Content

Related Glossary Terms

CASE STUDY

“It's hard to quantify, right now. But at a guess, I'd say it's probably more than 50% faster, at times. It's literally that quick. We've found to be an essential practical tool. We're very satisfied.”

Walsall Council

Access all documents on Obiter dictum

Obiter dictum meaning

What does Obiter dictum mean?
An obiter dictum is a judge’s comment in a judgment that helps explain or explore the issues but is not necessary to the court’s decision. It may include illustrations, hypotheticals or broader observations. Latin for 'said in passing', the term is a descriptive common law label developed through case law rather than statute. Obiter dicta do not form binding precedent; only the ratio decidendi binds. Nonetheless they are frequently cited as persuasive authority. The persuasive weight turns on the level of court (with ‘strong obiter’ from the UK Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, or, in Ireland, the Supreme Court or Court of Appeal carrying significant influence), the judge’s expertise and the cogency of the reasoning. Usage is broadly consistent across England & Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland; in Scotland the term ‘obiter’ is commonly used in the same sense. In Ireland, obiter from Irish appellate courts can shape future doctrine; UK authority is persuasive only. Practically, lawyers use obiter to: indicate likely future developments; test arguments where the ratio is against them; and interpret the scope of the binding ratio. Care is needed when classifying statements as ratio or obiter.
Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.

View the related News about Obiter dictum

NEWS
Northumbrian Water: no common law duty to prescribe policy—and immigration implications (trafficking leave; FCDO referral list) in England and Wales

Northumbrian Water Ltd, R v Water Services Regulation Authority [2024] EWCA Civ 842 Background to the decision As set out in the News Analysis: Northumbrian Water—No duty of prescription under the common law? (R (on the application of Northumbrian Water Ltd) v Water Services Regulation Authority), the decision confirms that where a public authority enjoys a discretionary power, it is under no requirement to publish a policy explaining the manner in which that discretion will be exercised. Accordingly, any general requirement to codify how such powers are to be applied was rejected. This conclusion displaces the stance adopted in ZLL v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2022] EWHC 85 (Admin) or, more precisely, treats the dictum on a ‘duty of prescription’ as obiter. While the implications of that point are examined in the article referenced, a few preliminary observations may assist what follows. First, the main source of support for recognising any such duty has been the Supreme Court decision in Lumba v SSHD...

Read More Right Arrow