Home Maxims & Terms Common Law meaning in Urdu
Legal Term Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Common Law

Common Law legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)

2019 SCMR 1704 HIGH-COURT-OF-AUSTRALIA Judicial Precedent
Manner in which the body of common law developedScopePolicy considerations

Law developed through the application of settled principles to new circumstances, by reasoning from settled principles to new conclusions or determining that a category was not closed

Further, the law must develop in coherence with the body of law to which it related

Policy considerations may influence the development of the law but only where that development was available having regard to the state of settled principles

Policy considerations could not justify an abrupt change which abrogated principle in favour of a result seen to be desirable in a particular case.

2018 SCMR 174 CONSTITUTIONAL-COURT-OF-SOUTH-AFRICA Judicial Precedent
Development of 'common law'ScopeCommon law developed incrementally through the rules of precedent, which ensured that like cases were treated alike

Development occurred not only when a common law rule was changed altogether or a new rule was introduced, but also when a court needed to determine whether a new set of facts fell within or beyond the scope of an existing rule

Development of the common law, therefore, could not take place in a factual vacuum

Whether a new set of facts fell within or beyond the scope of an existing rule may, in appropriate circumstances, be decided on exception, a procedure whereby the facts were assumed to be those pleaded for the purpose of determining whether they legally sustained a cause of action or a plea

Where, however, a common law rule was to be changed altogether, or a new rule was to be introduced, it was better to make a decision only after hearing all the evidence so that the decision could be given in the light of all the circumstances of the case, with due regard to all relevant factors

When exercising their authority to develop the common law, courts should be mindful that, in accordance with the principle of the separation of powers, the major engine for law reform should be the legislature

Relevant factors in such respect included whether the common law rule was a judge-made rule, the extent of the development required and the legislature's ability to amend or abolish the common law.

1990 PLD 28 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
Application to Pakistan

Resort to a rule of common law of England in reference to the one of Pakistan law on a rule of Islamic Law or jurisprudence or for that matter, the Islamic Common Law, is not now possible under the Pakistan Constitutional legal set up.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Common Law", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/2399

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Common Law"

SCMR 2018
----Development of 'common law'---Scope---Common law developed incrementally through the rules of precedent, which ensured that like cases were treated alike---Development occurred not only when a common law rule was changed altogether or a new rule was introduced, but also when a court needed to determine whether a new set of facts fell within or beyond the scope of an existing rule---Development of the common law, therefore, could not take place in a factual vacuum---Whether a new set of facts fell within or beyond the scope of an existing rule may, in appropriate circumstances, be decided on exception, a procedure whereby the facts were assumed to be those pleaded for the purpose of determining whether they legally sustained a cause of action or a plea---Where, however, a common law rule was to be changed altogether, or a new rule was to be introduced, it was better to make a decision only after hearing all the evidence so that the decision could be given in the light of all the circumstances of the case, with due regard to all relevant factors---When exercising their authority to develop the common law, courts should be mindful that, in accordance with the principle of the separation of powers, the major engine for law reform should be the legislature---Relevant factors in such respect included whether the common law rule was a judge-made rule, the extent of the development required and the legislature's ability to amend or abolish the common law.

2018 S C M R 174

MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT, GAUTENG and others — Applicants Versus DZ obo WZ — Respondent

Court: Constitutional Court of South Africa
PLD 1957
Revision Application No. 67 of 1953/Revision Application No. 68 of 1953, decided on 6th April 1957.

P L D 1957 (W

UMAR-Applicant Versus S. A. RANA and others-Opponents

Court:
PLD 1968
Second Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1965, decided on 20th May 1968.

P L D 1968 Karachi 797

AMIN COTTON COMPANY‑‑Appellant Versus KARACHI COTTON ASSOCIATION LTD.‑Respondent

Court:
PLD 1958
Second Appeal No. 512 of 1953, decided on 24th January 1956.

P L D 1958 Dacca 460

MESSRS. ABDUR RAHMAN ABDUL GANI‑Appellant Versus MESSRS. MACKINNON MACKENZIE & Co. of CHITTAGONG, and another‑Respondents

Court:
SCMR 1991
Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos.870/L and 871/1, of 1990, decided on 23rd February, 1991.

1991 S C M R 1697

MUHAMMAD YOUSAF — Petitioner Versus Sayed GHAYYUR HUSSAIN SHAH and others — Respondents

Court: High Court
PLD 1948
Privy Council Appeal No. 37 of 1945, decided on 15th July, 1948, from Madras.

P L D 1948 Privy Council 229

THE MAHARAJA OF PITTAPURAM-Appellant Versus THE PROVINCE OF MADRAS-Respondent

Court:
PLD 1957
Writ Petition No. 283 of 1957, decided on 4th September 1957.

P L D 1957 (W

SIDDIQ AHMAD-Petitioner Versus ESTATE OFFICER, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and another-Respondents

Court:
SCMR 1992
N/A

1992 S C M R 1524

R Versus GOTTS

Court: House of Lords
PLD 1990
Regular Second Appeals Nos.39 and 40 of 1906, decided on 20th June, 1990.

P L D 1990 Lahore 432

Syed GHAYYUR HUSSAIN SHAH and another‑‑Appellant Versus GHARIB ALAM‑‑Respondent

Court:
SCMR 2019
Decided on 12th June, 2019.

2019 S C M R 1397

INDEPENDENT PRINT LTD. and another — Appellants Versus LACHAUX — Respondent

Court: Supreme Court of UK*