A comparative study of the principle of voting certainty in jurisprudence, Iranian and British law
Subject Areas :
dariush
babaei
1
(Azad University / PhD Director of Private Law)
Vahid
Khandani
2
(Justice / Head of Second Branch of Imam Khomeini Branch of Justice)
Keywords: fair hearing, principle of certainty, appeal, court vote,
Abstract :
The primary principle in judicial verdicts is certainty, in the sense that each verdict issued is determinative and specifies the assignment of the litigants. Appeals against votes are contrary to the principle and require legal directions. These directions may be based on the terms and conditions of the vote or the issuing authority or subject matter documentation. In a comparative study of the subject in Imamiyyah jurisprudence it is observed that the jurists also consider the judge's ruling to be valid and non-violable, while permitting the monitoring of the performance of judges by other judges, and consider instances of the necessity of violating the ruling. Nowadays, with the development of cases and appeals, the principle has been diminished and the exception has been overcome. In English law, under section 52.1 of the CPR rules, appeals may be appealed by lower courts, but the hearing is reopened so that if the interests of justice and justice warrant, the hearing may be reopened. It will also allow the appellate court to grant appeals where it finds that the trial court erred or unfairly erroneously as a result of the procedure. The present article seeks to place the principle of judicial verdicts in the balance by a comparative study of Iranian and British law as well as the jurisprudential principles of the subject .
_||_