Law Reports
series of law reports published by the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting
The Law Reports is the name of a series of law reports published by the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting.
Pursuant to a practice direction given by Lord Judge during his tenure as the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, the Law Reports are "the most authoritative reports" and should always be "cited in preference where there is a choice." This requirement is further referred to in respect of appeals to the Court of Appeal in paragraph 29(2) of Practice Direction 52C of the Civil Procedure Rules.
This series is now divided into four main sub-series:
Law Reports, Appeal Cases, covering decisions of the House of Lords (and, since 2009, the Supreme Court), the Privy Council and the Court of Appeal – started in 1866 as the Law Reports, English & Irish Appeals, renamed in 1875 and redesigned in 1891;
Law Reports, Chancery Division, covering decisions of the Chancery Division of the High Court – started in 1865 as the Law Reports, Chancery Appeal Cases, renamed in 1875 and redesigned in 1890;
Law Reports, Family Division, covering decisions of the Family Division of the High Court – started in 1865 as the Law Reports, Probate & Divorce Cases, renamed Law Reports, Probate, Divorce & Admiralty Division in 1875, renamed Law Reports, Probate in 1891 and renamed in 1972; and
Law Reports, Queen's Bench, covering decision of the King's Bench Division (named the Queen's Bench Division during the reigns of Victoria and Elizabeth II) of the High Court – started in 1865, renamed Law Reports, Queen's Bench Division in 1875, renamed to drop "Division" in 1891, renamed to take account of the change of monarch in 1901, 1952 and 2022.
Series
The number and names of the series have changed. This is partly due to the merger of existing courts, the merger of existing divisions of individual courts, and the creation of new divisions of individual courts. Citation of series has also changed.
1865–1875
The Law Reports were originally divided into eleven series. Glanville Williams said that "roughly speaking" there was a series for each of the superior courts. The series were:
House of Lords, English and Irish Appeals
House of Lords, Scotch and Divorce Appeals
Privy Council Appeals
Chancery Appeal Cases
Equity Cases
Crown Cases Reserved
Queens Bench Cases
Common Pleas Cases
Exchequer Cases
Admiralty and Ecclesiastical Cases
Probate and Divorce Cases
These reports may be cited thus:
1875–1880
In 1875, the number of series was reduced to six. This was due to the creation of the High Court and a decision on the part of the publishers, to put the House of Lords, the Privy Council and the new Court of Appeal in the same volume, and to group Crown Cases Reserved and the Queen's Bench Division together.
This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Law Reports” as series of law reports published by the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.
Why this record matters
The subject matters to the history & society register because the source frames it as series of law reports published by the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.
The record creator and administrative purpose are central evidence, because official documentation reflects both action and institutional priorities. The source revision retrieved here is dated Feb 1, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q6503083. 1 of 1 selected statements include explicit references; 0 carry qualifiers and 0 use preferred rank. The first chronological checks are 2009, 1866, 1875 and 1891.
Institutional narratives can privilege the records that survived while minimizing voices that were never formally collected. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Compare institutional narratives with records created by participants and affected communities. Dates and formal titles are useful anchors, but not substitutes for context.
- Event chronology
- Institutional context
- Locating named record creators
Contemporary correspondence, government or organizational records, oral histories and cited historical scholarship.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Law Reports”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Law Reports primary sources, Law Reports archive and Reports research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Law Reports”?
- Which voices are present, absent or mediated by the institution?
- Who created the surviving record, and for what administrative purpose?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Law Reports” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.