Legal Definitions - case stated

A case stated is a specific legal procedure where a lower court, tribunal, or even parties in a dispute, present an agreed set of facts to a higher court to obtain a ruling on a specific point of law. The higher court does not re-examine the facts but applies the law to the facts as they have been "stated" and agreed upon by the parties or the lower body. This mechanism is often used to clarify a legal interpretation, resolve a dispute efficiently, or guide future decisions without the need for a full trial or appeal on factual matters.

Here are some examples to illustrate this concept:

• Imagine a local planning tribunal is reviewing an application for a new building. A new environmental regulation has recently come into effect, and the tribunal members are unsure how a specific clause in this regulation applies to the unique design of the proposed building. Instead of making a potentially incorrect ruling that could lead to a lengthy appeal process, the tribunal might decide to state a case to a higher administrative court. They would present the agreed facts of the building design and the application, and ask the higher court for a definitive legal interpretation of the environmental regulation's clause. The higher court would then provide a binding legal opinion based solely on the facts presented.

  This illustrates a case stated because a lower body (the planning tribunal) refers an agreed set of facts (the building design and application details) to a higher court to get a clear ruling on a specific point of law (the interpretation of the environmental regulation).

• Consider a situation in a magistrates' court where an individual is accused of a minor public order offense. Both the prosecution and the defense agree on all the factual events that transpired – what was said, where it happened, and who was present. However, they strongly disagree on the legal interpretation of a particular phrase within the public order statute itself. To resolve this fundamental legal disagreement without a full trial on the facts, the magistrates' court could be asked by the parties, or decide on its own initiative, to state a case to a higher court (such as a Divisional Court). The higher court would then rule on the correct legal meaning of the disputed phrase, which would then guide the magistrates' court in applying the law to the agreed facts.

  This illustrates a case stated because a lower court (the magistrates' court) refers an agreed set of facts and a disputed legal interpretation of a statute to a higher court for a definitive legal ruling, which will then be applied to the case.

• Suppose a company and the national tax authority are in disagreement over how a specific tax deduction applies to a complex financial transaction the company undertook. Both parties agree completely on all the details and figures of the transaction (the facts). Their dispute lies solely in the legal interpretation of the relevant section of the tax code. To avoid a protracted and costly legal battle, they might jointly agree to state a case directly to a specialized tax court or a higher general court. They would present the agreed facts of the financial transaction and ask the court for a binding ruling on the correct legal application of the tax deduction. The court would then issue a judgment on the legal point, which would resolve their dispute.

  This illustrates a case stated because the parties (the company and the tax authority) agree on the facts of a transaction and present them to a higher court to resolve a specific legal question regarding the application of tax law.