Simonds J held that on the facts before him no general scheme of development existed. It was accordingly not necessary to determine what rights as between the sub-purchasers there might have been if the main scheme had been held to exist. However, as the point had been fully argued, he expressed his views on it. I do not think that such views can simply be stigmatised as being obiter and so of little weight. A mere passing remark, or a statement or assumption on some matter that has not been argued, is one thing; a considered judgment on a point fully argued is another, especially where, had the facts been otherwise, it would have formed part of the ratio. Such judicial dicta, standing in authority somewhere between a ratio decidendi and an obiter dictum, seem to me to have a weight nearer to the former than the latter . . ‘
 Ch 656
England and Wales
Cited – Brunner v Greenslade ChD 1971
Megarry J discussed the ratio decidendi of and approving dicta in Lawrence.
‘The substance of the views of Simonds J was that where there is a head scheme, any sub-purchasers are bound inter se by the covenants of that head scheme even though . .
Cited – Youngsam, Regina (on The Application of) v The Parole Board Admn 7-Apr-2017
The claimant challenged being recalled to prison from licence after being found in an area from which he was excluded as a condition of his parole. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.581639