How UK Courts Reason: Judicial Decision-Making in Practice

_{This article is written for educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such.}

---

Introduction

Today, I decided to write about judicial reasoning rather than outcomes. Public discussion of court decisions often centres on who won or lost, while paying far less attention to how judges reach their conclusions. This article therefore examines the method of judicial decision-making, using decided cases to illustrate how legal reasoning operates in practice.

Although judgments may appear opaque, courts in the UK follow a disciplined and recognisable reasoning structure. Appreciating that structure allows judgments to be read as reasoned legal arguments rather than narrative accounts of disputes.

---

Judicial Reasoning in Practice

This process underpins the reasoning found in most UK judgments, regardless of subject matter.

Tap to view the judicial reasoning flow

Identify the legal issue
→ What legal question must the court resolve?

Determine the applicable law
→ Statute, binding precedent, or established principle?

Apply the legal rule to the facts
→ How the legal test operates on the facts as found

Reach a reasoned conclusion
→ Outcome explained and justified

Judges in the UK are not free to decide cases according to personal views of fairness or policy. Their task is to apply the law as it stands, constrained by statute, binding precedent, and constitutional principle. This was made clear by the Supreme Court in Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police, where Lord Reed rejected the idea that courts possess a general discretion to expand liability based on broad considerations of fairness, emphasising instead that judicial reasoning must begin with established legal principles.¹

As Lord Reed observed: “The common law does not abandon the search for principle in favour of the exercise of a discretion… The court’s task is to identify the relevant principles and apply them to the facts.”

The reasoning process begins with the identification of the legal issues that require determination. Courts do not address every argument raised by the parties, but only those questions necessary to resolve the dispute. In Caparo Industries plc v Dickman, for example, the House of Lords did not ask whether reliance on company accounts was foreseeable in the abstract. Instead, the court focused on whether a duty of care was owed to the claimants in their specific capacity, given the purpose for which the accounts were prepared.² The selection of the legal issue shaped the entire reasoning process.

Once the issue is identified, the court establishes the applicable law. This may involve interpreting statutory language or applying binding precedent. Even in cases of significant political sensitivity, courts adhere to orthodox legal method. In R (Miller) v Prime Minister, the Supreme Court grounded its reasoning in constitutional principles concerning parliamentary sovereignty and justiciability before applying those principles to the facts of prorogation.³ The judgment demonstrates that judicial reasoning remains legal in nature, even where the surrounding context is politically charged.

The core of the judicial task lies in applying the relevant legal rule to the facts as found. In Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee, the court did not assess whether the medical decision was ideal, but whether it aligned with a responsible body of professional opinion.⁴ The legal test dictated the evaluative framework through which the facts were examined. Similarly, in Robinson, the Supreme Court examined the specific factual circumstances of the police officer’s conduct before concluding that ordinary principles of negligence applied, rejecting the notion of a special rule insulating police actions from liability.⁵

Judgments must culminate in a reasoned conclusion. Courts are required to explain why one argument succeeds and another fails, enabling parties and future courts to understand the basis of the decision. This obligation serves the rule of law by ensuring that judicial power is exercised transparently rather than arbitrarily. As Lord Bingham observed extra-judicially, reasoned judgments are a defining feature of lawful governance.⁶

---

Conclusion

UK judicial decision-making is characterised by structure, constraint, and justification. While outcomes may differ, the method by which courts reason remains consistent: identifying the legal issue, establishing the applicable law, and applying that law to the facts through reasoned analysis.

Reading judgments with attention to this reasoning process allows for a deeper understanding of how the law operates in practice, shifting focus away from results and towards legal method.

---

References

1. Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4, [2019] AC 736. ↩︎
2. Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 (HL) ↩︎
3. R (Miller) v Prime Minister [2019] UKSC 41, [2020] AC 373. ↩︎
4. Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582 (QB). ↩︎
5. ibid (n 1) ↩︎
6. Tom Bingham, The Rule of Law (Penguin 2011). ↩︎

Share this post: on Facebook on LinkedIn