The English Legal System: Practice Questions

These are original questions written for Marlbridge, for revision and practice on this content. They are not reproduced past-paper questions, and they do not replicate the exam’s exact structure, question count or mark tariffs — examination boards hold copyright in their own papers. Use these alongside the official past papers available free from your board.

Related: The English Legal System revision notes | The English Legal System — courts and personnel practice

---

Section A

1. Name the main sources of English law and give an example of each. [4]

2. Explain the difference between the civil and criminal courts in terms of the parties and the outcome. [3]

Section B

3. Explain the four tracks in the civil courts and state which cases go to each. [8]

4. Explain four forms of alternative dispute resolution and give two advantages of ADR over litigation. [10]

5. Explain the difference between ratio decidendi and obiter dicta, and describe two ways a court can avoid an earlier precedent. [6]

6. Explain the literal rule and the purposive approach to statutory interpretation, and state one advantage and one disadvantage of each. [8]

---

Answers

1. Legislation (Acts of Parliament) — e.g. the Theft Act 1968 [1]. Delegated legislation — e.g. a statutory instrument or a local by-law [1]. Case law / judicial precedent — e.g. Donoghue v Stevenson establishing the modern law of negligence [1]. International treaties and the European Convention on Human Rights, given effect through the Human Rights Act 1998 [1].

2. Civil cases are brought by a claimant against a defendant, criminal cases by the prosecution on behalf of the Crown [1] [1]. In civil cases the outcome is a finding of liability and a remedy such as damages or an injunction; in criminal cases it is a conviction and a sentence [1].

3. Small claims track — claims up to £10,000, heard informally in the County Court, usually without lawyers, with costs not normally recoverable [1] [1]. Fast track — claims between £10,000 and £25,000, with a strict timetable and a trial of no more than one day [1] [1]. Intermediate track (in force from 1 October 2023) — typically claims between £25,000 and £100,000, but defined by its conditions rather than by value alone: the claim must be suitable for neither the small claims nor the fast track, the trial must be likely to last no more than three days, oral expert evidence must be likely to be limited to two experts per party, and the claim must be brought by one claimant against one or two defendants, or by two claimants against one defendant (CPR r.26.9(7)) [1] [1]. Multi-track — the residual track for claims over £100,000, or that fail the intermediate track’s conditions, together with classes of claim that must be allocated to it whatever their value, such as mesothelioma claims and, generally, clinical negligence claims (CPR r.26.9(10)). The clinical negligence exception is narrow: it applies only where the claim would normally be allocated to the intermediate track, the defendant has admitted liability in full in its letter of response under the Pre-Action Protocol for the Resolution of Clinical Disputes, and the defendant has not raised a Limitation Act 1980 defence. Multi-track cases are heard in the County Court or High Court with active case management by the judge [1] [1].

4. Negotiation — the parties, or their solicitors, discuss the matter directly and reach their own agreement; it is private, cheap and immediate [1] [1]. Mediation — a neutral third party helps the parties reach their own solution but does not impose one; useful where a continuing relationship matters [1] [1]. Conciliation — similar to mediation, but the conciliator plays a more active role and may suggest a solution, as ACAS does in employment disputes [1] [1]. Arbitration — the parties agree to submit the dispute to an arbitrator whose decision (the award) is binding and enforceable in court, often under the Arbitration Act 1996 [1] [1]. Advantages, any two: it is far cheaper and quicker than court proceedings, which can take years [1]; it is private, so commercial reputation and confidential information are protected [1]; it is less adversarial, so it is more likely to preserve an ongoing business or family relationship [1]; the parties can choose a decision-maker with relevant technical expertise [1].

5. Ratio decidendi is the legal reason for the decision — this alone is binding on later courts [1]. Obiter dicta is everything said “by the way”, which is persuasive only, not binding [1]. A court can avoid an earlier precedent by distinguishing it, holding that the material facts of the current case differ so the earlier decision does not apply [1] [1], or by a higher court overruling it, declaring the earlier decision wrong [1] [1].

6. Literal rule — words are given their plain, ordinary meaning, even if the result is absurd, applying the words Parliament actually enacted regardless of the outcome [1] [1]. Advantage: it respects parliamentary sovereignty, since judges apply the words Parliament actually enacted rather than substituting their own view [1]; disadvantage: it can defeat Parliament’s evident intention and produce an unjust or absurd outcome [1]. Purposive approach — the court asks what Parliament’s purpose was in passing the Act, and interprets the words accordingly to achieve that purpose [1] [1]. Advantage: it achieves a just result that reflects Parliament’s real intention, particularly where the literal wording has not kept pace with circumstances [1]; disadvantage: it risks judges legislating, substituting their own view of what Parliament should have intended for what it actually enacted [1].

---

Where marks are usually lost

• Confusing conciliation with mediation.
• Giving the small claims or fast track limit incorrectly.
• Describing the intermediate track by its monetary band alone, without its conditions on trial length, expert evidence and the number of parties.
• Treating obiter dicta as binding.
• Describing a rule of interpretation without a linked advantage or disadvantage.