Case law (or judicial precedent or judge made law) is the law in Common Law jurisdictions that is made by judges in a court of law. They are primary sources of law that evolve as courts interpret statutes and follow the decisions made by judges in earlier cases according to the doctrine of precedent. This doctrine operates under the principle of stare decisis meaning "to stand by decisions", so courts must follow and apply the law as set out in the decisions of the higher courts in previous cases. It is important to study case law to understand how legislation is applied and interpreted by the courts.
A small portion of cases heard before the courts are published in a Law Report. These are usually cases of note, eg. they are controversial or establish or overturn a precedent.
The following resources include useful information about the England and Wales Court Structure.
The Law Reports should be cited where available (AGLC4 rule 24.1.1).
Since 2015 the sub-series of The Law Reports has been combined into one: Law Reports: Appeal Cases (AC), Queens Bench Division (QB), Chancery Division (Ch), and Family Division (Fam).
The Law Reports, published by the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England and Wales and available via ICLR Online, included four sub-series: Appeals Cases (Judgments of the Supreme Court, House of Lords, and Privy Council), Queen's Bench Division, Chancery Division and Family Division (cases heard in these High Court divisions).
Where a judgment has not (or not yet) been reported in the Official Law Reports, but has been reported in the Weekly Law Reports (W.L.R.) or All England Law Reports (All ER), then this report should be cited.
Where a judgment has not been reported in The Law Reports, Weekly Law Reports (ICLR, 1954 - ) or All England Reports (LexisNexis, 1936-) but has been reported in an authoritative specialist series of reports, this report should be cited.
Where a judgment has not been reported in any of the report series above but has been reported in other reports, this report should be cited.
Refer to the Finding Case Law tab in this guide for a list of databases that hold UK reports.
Reports published between 1537 and 1865 are referred to as nominate reports and are published under the name of the reporter (eg. Coke's Reports, Simons, Beavan, etc.). Many of the nominate reports have been complied and reprinted. The first reprint is the Revised Reports (RR) and the subsequent (and preferred) reprint is the English Reports (ER).
When citing nominate reports, you should also include a parallel citation of the English Reports (or the Revised Reports) where available.
The Revised Reports and English Reports are available in print and online. Refer to the Finding Cases tab on this guide.
References to reported cases often include an abbreviation of the report series title. You can use these tools to find the meaning of an abbreviation.
Cases in the Court of Appeal have always retained the order of the parties at first instance ie: Plaintiff/Claimant v Defendant, regardless of which was the appellant or respondent.
In the case of appeals to the House of Lords (now the Supreme Court), prior to 1974, the appellant was always named first regardless of whether they had been the plaintiff or defendant at first instance. In 1974, this position was changed so that the order of the parties remains the same throughout (see Practice Direction (House of Lords: Case Title) [1974] 1 WLR 305, and sections 2.1.18 to 2.1.22 under the heading Case Title of the Supreme Court Practice Direction No.2).
Cases can sometimes attract popular names in the media or within legal circles.
A list of popular names is available in Clinch, Legal Research: A Practitioner's Handbook (2019)
You can also search for cases using their popular names on Justcite.
Legal Research: A Practitioner's Handbook by 
For more detailed information on finding historical cases, see our Legal History Research Guide and the National Archive's guide, Trials in the Old Bailey and the Central Criminal Court.
Also useful is The Proceedings of the Old Bailey, 1674-1913, a fully searchable website of criminal cases held at London's central criminal court.
When the Court is sitting, you can view live footage of the hearings via the Supreme Court Live website.
The Supreme Court's Video on Demand website provides footage of complete trial proceedings in decided cases, including arguments and judgments. These are loaded onto the site as soon as the judgment is handed down, and are available for one year.
The Supreme Court's Youtube channel shows five-minute summaries of judgments, delivered by the lead Judge. The Justices’ summaries aim to explain briefly the background to the appeal in hand, the decision the court has reached, and the reasons for that decision.
Before the Human Rights Act was passed by Parliament in 1998 it was not possible for an individual in the UK to challenge a decision of a public authority on the grounds that it violated his or her rights under the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), within the courts of the UK. Individuals instead had to take their case directly to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (ECtHR).
Once the Human Rights Act came into force on 2 October 2000, individuals could claim a remedy for breaches of the Convention rights in the UK courts. An individual who thinks that his or her Convention rights have not been respected by a decision of a UK court may still bring a claim before the ECtHR, but they must first try their appeal in the UK courts.
It is the duty of all such courts, including the UK Supreme Court, to interpret all existing legislation so that it is compatible with the ECHR; so far as it is possible to do so. If the court decides it is not possible to interpret legislation so that it is compatible with the Convention it will issue a 'declaration of incompatibility'.
Although a declaration of incompatibility does not place any legal obligation on the government to amend or repeal legislation, it sends a clear message to legislators that they should change the law to make it compatible with the human rights set out in the Convention. In giving effect to rights contained in the ECHR the Court must take account of any decision of the ECtHR in Strasbourg. No national court should "without strong reason dilute or weaken the effect of the Strasbourg case law" (Lord Bingham of Cornhill in R (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator [2004] UKHL 26).
Source: The UK Supreme Court website
Link to the European Court of Human Rights website.