0

I thought that in general, cases at the county court level are decided summarily, unless and until they get appealed to, e.g., the circuit judge.

Yet, Bower v Brewdog appears to have been judged by a district judge, in the county court, and I'm left wondering why.

Improve this question
0

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

There's nothing special, per se, about County Court cases being published. It's the content that matters, not the venue.

Bower v Brewdog has attracted some heightened media attention and public interest so, as a "notable" judgment, it was published presumably in line with Incorporated Council of Law Reporting's selection criteria:

  • All cases which introduce, or appear to introduce, a new principle or a new rule.

  • All cases which materially modify an existing principle or rule.

  • All cases which settle, or materially tend to settle, a question upon which the law is doubtful.

  • All cases which for any reason are peculiarly instructive.

Improve this answer
3
  • Okay so this addresses why the reasoned written judgment was published, but not why it was recorded and exists. Don’t most cases at gee county court DJ/DDJ level get decided summarily without a written statement of reasons?
    – Seeking answers
    Feb 27 at 16:09
  • Some do, some don't. Summary judgement just means there is not going to be a trial, and there are rules about what can (and cannot) be dealt with summarily.
    – user35069
    Feb 27 at 16:49
  • Sorry I was using it in another perhaps incorrect sense and to mean, basically just a one liner ruling without a multipage written statement of reasoning.
    – Seeking answers
    Feb 27 at 16:57

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .