Prof Goodhart Case Analysis

Part 1 Finding the Ratio Decidendi of a case is an article written by Professor Gooodhart on December 1930. His main concern is due to the initial difficulty with the phrase ratio decidendi itself. A principle is taking account (a) of the facts treated by judges as material and (b) his decision based on them. A principle of a case may be a ratio decidendi of another case. The court is the one who decides whether the facts of the case are material or otherwise, immaterial. (Goodhart, 1930) What Professor Goodhart means by “the reason which the judge gives for his decision is never the binding part of the precedent” is that a judge’s reasoning for a certain case cannot be a ratio decidendi of the case. This is because it may narrow the principle

Of course if the application for certiorari is dismissed, that endsthe matter. But if the application is allowed, the court has surely to mould the order. If we were to merely grant certiorari to quash the award and nothing more, this will deprive the writ of its vital and effective meaning and may result in grave injustice being caused to the claimant. Mr Nathan argued that the view expressed by the majority (Eusoff Chin CJ and Edgar Joseph FCJ) in Rama Chandran is wrong and that the minority view housed in the judgment of Wan Yahya FCJ accurately represents the law in HARRIS SOLID STATE (M) SDN BHD & ORS v BRUNO GENTIL S/O PEREIRA & ORS [1996] 3 MLJ 489. There is however, an important point of difference between Rama Chandran and the instant appeal. In the former, the Industrial Court had found that the workman had been justly terminated from service. An application to the High Court for certiorari to have that finding quashed failed. In the present case, the court was merely dismissing the

The legal argument on the issue is the contract of surrogacy is void and unenforceable under section 24 (e) of the Contracts Act 1950. A case that can e used as a precedent is Arumugam v Somasundram [1934] FMSLR 322. This case is related to a contract being illegal because of immorality. This is an Indian case. However, the main principle is the same. How I find the ratio of this case is firstly by finding the facts of the case . this can be seen in the facts of the case. Secondly, determining the material facts from the immaterial facts. The facts listed in the judgment of the case are material. Thirdly, is to make judgment based on the material facts. The ratio decidendi of his case is there is nothing illegal in agreeing to drive a car for hire. However, if the object of the agreement was to drive an unlicensed car for hire, then the object of the arrangement was unlawful.
Part