header-logo header-logo

Common law: binding v ‘citable’

20 June 2025 / David Burrows
Issue: 8121 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail
223035
The president’s citation practice guidance covers ‘citable’ judgments. But what does that really mean, asks David Burrows
  • Guidance published earlier this year on the citation of authorities addresses: what constitutes a precedent, what can be cited in court, and what judgments should be published.
  • In the context of the guidance and a selection of recent cases, this article examines interpretations of ‘binding’, ‘precedent’ and ‘citable’.

In February, the president of the Family Division published Practice Guidance (Citation of Authorities: Judgments of Circuit Judges) [2025] 1 WLR 1063 (the guidance), in which he deals with two irreconcilable issues: publicity for lesser judges’ judgments (ie, to show what they are up to, perhaps?) and trying to restrict the number of ‘citable’ judgments at different levels. The guidance includes in one document three different elements of law (not only of family law), namely:

i) What in law is a precedent?

ii) What is anyone permitted to cite to a court? (see Practice Direction (Citation of Authorities) [2001] 1 WLR 1001, [2001] Fam Law

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

National Pro Bono Centre—Esther McConnell & Sarah Oliver Scemla

National Pro Bono Centre—Esther McConnell & Sarah Oliver Scemla

Charity strengthens leadership as national Pro Bono Week takes place

Michelman Robinson—Akshay Sewlikar

Michelman Robinson—Akshay Sewlikar

Dual-qualified partner joins London disputes practice

McDermott Will & Schulte—Karen Butler

McDermott Will & Schulte—Karen Butler

Transactions practice welcomes partner in London office

NEWS
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold dives into the quirks of civil practice, from the Court of Appeal’s fierce defence of form N510 to fresh reminders about compliance and interest claims, in this week's Civil Way
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) has restated a fundamental truth, writes John Gould, chair of Russell-Cooke, in this week's NLJ: only authorised persons can conduct litigation. The decision sparked alarm, but Gould stresses it merely confirms the Legal Services Act 2007
The government’s decision to make the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) the Single Professional Services Supervisor marks a watershed in the UK’s fight against money laundering, says Rebecca Hughes of Corker Binning in this week's NLJ. The FCA will now oversee 60,000 firms across legal and accountancy sectors—a massive expansion of remit that raises questions over resources and readiness 
The High Court's decision in Parfitt v Jones [2025] EWHC 1552 (Ch) provided a striking reminder of the need to instruct the right expert in retrospective capacity assessments, says Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell in NLJ this week
Paige Coulter of Quinn Emanuel reports on the UK’s first statutory definition of SLAPPs under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll