ABSTRACT
Judicial reasoning tends to be carried out on the basis of analogy and judges have a large degree of discretion in selecting what are to be considered as analogous cases. They also have a tendency continuously to extend existing precedents to fit new situations, as the historical evolution of the tort of negligence will show. Central to the common law is the doctrine of judicial precedent. The operation of the doctrine of binding precedent is dependent on the existence of an extensive reporting service to provide access to judicial decisions. The technique of 'distinguishing' cases on their facts provides judges with scope for declining to follow precedents by which they would otherwise be bound. If a judge decides, for some reason, that the facts in the case before him are so different from those of a case setting a precedent, he is at liberty to ignore the precedent and treat the case in question as not being covered by it.
