www.bailii

JOIN US FREE         LIVE PROJECTS                                              ABOUT US   MEDIATION   ADVOCACY   DONATE  PRIVACY POLICY T&C

---

The COCOO-BAILII Doctrine: A Strategic Model for Precedent Warfare

This doctrine establishes the protocol for interrogating the BAILII case law database (bailii.org). This is not a passive legal archive; it is the primary battlefield for precedent in the UK and Ireland. We will weaponize this platform to unearth the specific legal arguments that dismantle our opponents’ cases, find the procedural errors that invalidate regulatory decisions, and build the unshakable legal foundations for our most critical strategic plays, including Challenge Discretion, APPEALS (JR2COURT), and FOC DAM (Find Other Claimants, Monetize Damages).

1. Core Principles of Interrogation

Our use of BAILII is governed by the most fundamental principles of the COCOO framework. We are not just reading judgments; we are reverse-engineering victory.

• Precedent as a Weapon: The mind maps mandate that we use appeals and judicial review as a core offensive strategy.¹ BAILII is our primary armoury for this. We will build a library of judgments where courts have overturned regulators, establishing the precedents that will arm our own challenges.
• The Engine of Challenge Discretion: The doctrine of challenging the discretionary power of public bodies is won or lost on legal precedent.¹ We will use BAILII to find every instance where a court has found a regulator’s decision to be irrational, disproportionate, or procedurally unfair. This creates a map of their legal vulnerabilities.
• The Legal Foundation for FOC DAM: While BAILII does not identify claimants directly, it provides the legal principles essential for a successful FOC DAM campaign.¹ We will find cases that establish a low bar for causation, a broad duty of care, or a generous approach to quantifying damages, which we can then apply to our new class of victims.
• Judicial Noisefilter: BAILII acts as a high-level Noisefilter for legal strategy.¹ By analyzing the frequency and outcomes of cases on a particular topic, we can gauge the judicial appetite for certain arguments, allowing us to focus our resources on strategies that are most likely to succeed in court.

2. Weaponizing the Platform’s Arsenal: Capabilities and Search Rules

Mastery of BAILII’s Advanced Search is paramount. Its power lies in its support for precise Boolean logic and its granular jurisdiction filters.

• Official Search Rules & Functionality: As requested, here are the official search rules for the platform, which we will exploit to their fullest extent ²:

Operator/Syntax	Function	Example of Use
AND	Finds documents containing all search terms.	merger AND "public interest"
OR	Finds documents containing either or both search terms.	cartel OR price-fixing
NOT	Excludes documents containing a specific term.	"judicial review" NOT immigration
” “	Searches for the exact phrase.	"abuse of a dominant position"
( )	Groups terms to be processed as a single unit, resolving ambiguity.	(CMA OR Ofcom) AND (remedies NOT divestment)
exact:( )	Disables automatic word stemming to find only the exact word(s).	exact:(customary AND recreation)

• Key Platform Features:
  • Granular Jurisdiction Filters: As seen in the screenshot, we can isolate our search to specific courts (Supreme Court, Court of Appeal (Civil Division)) and tribunals (Competition Appeal Tribunal), or entire jurisdictions (England & Wales, Scotland, Europe). This is critical for finding the most relevant and binding precedents.¹
  • Date Filtering: The ability to search within a specific date range allows us to track the evolution of judicial thinking on a particular topic.
  • Sorting Options: We can sort results by Relevance, Date, or Jurisdiction to prioritize the most recent or authoritative judgments.

3. Strategic Interrogation: The Questions We Ask

We interrogate BAILII to find the legal ammunition for our campaigns and the weaknesses in our opponents’ armour.

• For Challenge Discretion & APPEALS (JR2COURT):

  • “What are the leading cases where the Court of Appeal has overturned a decision of the Competition and Markets Authority on the grounds of procedural unfairness or a flawed interpretation of the evidence?”
  • “Find all judgments from the last 5 years where a court has quashed a decision by Ofgem or Ofwat for failing to give adequate reasons.”
  • “Which arguments have successfully been used to establish a ‘legitimate expectation’ in a judicial review against a government department’s change in policy?”

• For FOC DAM & Monetizing Harm:

  • “What is the current case law on establishing causation for economic loss in claims against a cartel, for example, the trucks cartel?”
  • “Find all cases discussing the duty of care owed by a privatized utility, like Thames Water, to residents affected by its operational failures (e.g., sewer flooding).”
  • “Which recent cases have set precedents for the assessment of damages in large-scale consumer group actions?”

• For WPI (Public Interest) & Narrative Framing:

  • “How have the UK courts defined the ‘public interest’ in the context of merger control or environmental regulation? Which factors do they weigh most heavily?”
  • “Find cases where a company’s compliance with a ‘Code of Conduct’ was considered by the court as a mitigating or aggravating factor.”

4. The COCOO-BAILII Strategic Playbook: A Model for Action

The following playbooks provide standardized workflows for using BAILII to generate decisive legal intelligence.

Playbook A: The “Regulator Vulnerability” Audit

• Objective: To build a dossier of a specific regulator’s past legal defeats, creating a playbook of arguments to use in our own challenges.
• Execution:
  1. Isolate the Target: On the Advanced Search page, construct a query to find cases where the target regulator is a party.
     • Query: ("Competition and Markets Authority" OR CMA) OR ("Office of Communications" OR Ofcom)
  2. Find the Losses: Add terms that indicate a negative outcome for the regulator.
     • Query: (("Competition and Markets Authority" OR CMA) AND (appeal OR overturned OR quashed OR "procedural irregularity")) NOT criminal
  3. Filter by Court: Use the jurisdiction filter to limit results to the most authoritative courts, such as the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) and the Supreme Court.
  4. Dissect the Judgments: Analyze the resulting cases, paying forensic attention to the exact paragraphs where the judges critique the regulator’s reasoning, evidence, or procedure.
• Strategic Outcome: This playbook produces an invaluable “Regulator Weakness Dossier.” When COCOO challenges a new decision, we can arm our submission with direct citations to past rulings that have defeated the regulator on similar grounds, putting them immediately on the defensive.

Playbook B: The “Judicial Review Ammunition” Depot

• Objective: To find the specific legal arguments and precedents needed to launch a powerful judicial review (JR) against a public body’s decision.
• Execution:
  1. Define the Grounds: Determine the legal grounds for the JR (e.g., Illegality, Irrationality, Procedural Impropriety).
  2. Construct the Search: Create a highly specific search query combining the grounds with the context.
     • Scenario: Challenging a government department’s award of a public contract to a competitor like Serco or Capita.
     • Query: ("public contract" OR procurement) AND ("judicial review") AND (irrational OR unreasonable OR "error of law")
  3. Refine by Defendant Type: Add keywords to focus on the type of defendant.
     • Query: ("public contract" OR procurement) AND ("judicial review") AND (irrational OR unreasonable) AND ("Secretary of State" OR "government department")
  4. Extract the Principles: From the resulting judgments, extract the precise legal tests and principles the courts have applied when assessing the lawfulness of public contract awards.
• Strategic Outcome: This provides COCOO with a pre-packaged set of legal arguments, supported by direct precedent, ready to be deployed in a USP to a losing bidder or in our own direct challenge. It dramatically reduces the research time needed to launch a high-impact JR.

Playbook C: The “Legal Doctrine” Mapper

• Objective: To map the evolution of a key legal concept over time, allowing COCOO to align its strategy with the prevailing judicial winds.
• Execution:
  1. Select the Doctrine: Choose a legal concept critical to COCOO’s operations. Example: The “polluter pays” principle.
  2. Run a Time-Series Search: Conduct a series of searches, filtering by date range.
     • Query 1: "polluter pays principle" with Date filter 2010-2015.
     • Query 2: "polluter pays principle" with Date filter 2016-2020.
     • Query 3: "polluter pays principle" with Date filter 2021-Present.
  3. Analyze the Evolution: Compare the judgments from each period. Has the judicial interpretation become stricter or more lenient? Are the courts applying it to new situations? Are they citing different international conventions or domestic statutes?
• Strategic Outcome: This playbook gives COCOO a unique strategic foresight. By understanding how judicial attitudes are shifting, we can anticipate how a court is likely to rule on a future case. We can advise clients to settle cases that align with a strengthening judicial trend against them, or to aggressively litigate cases where the judicial tide is turning in their favor.