We've seen that the system of precedent means that law can be consistent, and this is obviously a good thing. If the law is consistent and predictable, it's easy for people to regulate their lives in accordance with the law. If people know what the law is, this will help them to avoid legal disputes. People can decide whether to take a dispute to court or not, based on their knowledge of what the law is. This saves time and money. It also means that the law is more than just a seemingly random and subjective decisions of judges. Precedent means that there is a system of formal rules that judges apply when deciding a case, but on the other hand, it is said that precedent can create a rigid and inflexible system of law. What if social conditions have changed over the years and the law's original solution to a problem is no longer the right one in the present day? Judges may then be bound to apply a precedent to come to an unsatisfactory decision in a case. So, the system of precedent may mean that the law cannot change as much or as quickly as it needs to. There are ways that judges try to avoid precedence they don't want to be bound by in a particular case. This can lead to more flexibility, but on the other hand, it also reduces certainty. One of the main ways judges do this, is by distinguishing previous cases. Which means that they find that the facts of the case before them are materially different from the facts that precedent, and that therefore they are not bound by that precedent. Precedence can also be overruled or completely set aside by courts higher up in the court hierarchy. A good illustration of this tension between consistency and flexibility can be seen in the question of whether the highest court, the House of Lords, or the Supreme Court, as it is now, should be bound by its own previous decisions. In the year 1898, in the London Street Tramways case, the House of Lords held that in the future they would be bound by their own previous decisions. The reason was said to be to bring finality to legal issues, so the same issues would not be continually argued before the courts. This privileges finality and certainty over flexibility, but it raises the question of what happens if these final rulings are incorrect, or if society changes, so they're no longer appropriate. Should there be a way for these wrong decisions to be overruled or changed to allow the laws develop where necessary? In the period after the London Street Tramways case, it was felt that this decision was preventing the development of the common law. So, in 1966, the House of Lords issued a statement called a Practice Statement, saying that in the future, the House of Lords would no longer consider itself bound by its previous decisions, thus reversing their previous approach. The House of Lords stated that too rigid adherence to precedent may lead to injustice in a particular case and also unduly restrict the proper development of the law. However, the House of Lords made it clear that only rarely will the court depart from an earlier decision, and this is in fact what's happened. The House of Lords also stated that it would be most likely to use the power to overrule its previous decisions in situations where there had been significant social change, so that an existing precedent was outdated, or inappropriate in modern social conditions, values, and practices. The Supreme Court, when it replaced the House of Lords at the top of the court hierarchy in 2009, confirmed that it would take the same approach as the House of Lords, in not considering itself bound by its own early decisions.