在普通法原则下的先例案件是在过去的案件中作出的判决，这些案件被认为是案件的权威。在这里，这两个案例必须与被引用为权威的先例大致相同。[ 2014 ]商务词典，在上下文中确定优先需要注意的是，对案件事实的材料都是类似的，法院之前的决定是公认的权威必须在层次结构中的更高一级法院。[（温顺，2014）“适用法律”]
“遵循先例”在拉丁语中的意思是“站在事情决定。”康奈尔大学法学院的“遵循先例”’stare定义为“本质上遵循先例原则。法院援引先例当一个问题已被带到法庭已经裁定。一般来说，法院将坚持先前的裁决，虽然这不是普遍真理”[康奈尔大学法学院2014a ]照章办事 原则只适用于对优先权存在的情况下，即1）案件涉及的基本事实和材料（实质性相似）和2）交付的先例的法院必须是一个更高的权威。[温柔]，2014
我发现这种情况下的搜索策略是第一http://www.austlii.edu.au/定位的情况下打开URL。在搜索文本框，然后我输入“迪拉办公设备 用品有限公司诉澳大利亚佳能金融公司[ 2006 ] VSC 42（16二月2006）”。这并没有产生任何结果。然后我做了搜索词更简洁，输入“迪拉办公设备及用品有限公司诉澳大利亚佳能金融公司”。这给了我链接的情况。我收集的链接也可以更好地使用先进的搜索选项，可与本网站。有两个搜索结果可用。
A precedent case under the common law doctrine is the decisions made in court in past cases which have been assumed as the authority for a case. Here the two cases have to be substantially similar for the precedent to be cited as authority. [ Business Dictionary, 2014] In the context of deciding the precedence it is necessary to note that the material facts of the case have to be similar and the court whose previous decision is to be accepted as authority must be a higher court in the hierarchy.[ (Meek, 2014) in ‘Applying the law’]
Meaning and Application of stare decisis
‘stare decisis’ in Latin means “to stand by things decided.” The Cornell university law school defines the ‘‘stare decisis’ as “essentially the doctrine of precedent. Courts cite to stare decisis when an issue has been previously brought to the court and a ruling already issued. Generally, courts will adhere to the previous ruling, though this is not universally true” [ Cornell University Law School, 2014a] The doctrine of stare decisis is applicable only when the case for the precedence exists which is that 1) the case involves the same essential and material facts (substantial similarity) and 2) the court which delivered the precedent must be of a higher authority. [ Meek, 2014]
Mildura Case-Search Steps
The search strategy I used to find this case was to first open the URL for http://www.austlii.edu.au/ to locate the case. In the search text box I then typed in “Mildura Office Equipment & Supplies Pty Ltd v Canon Finance Australia Ltd  VSC 42 (16 February 2006)”. This did not yield any results. Then I made the search term more concise and typed in “Mildura Office Equipment & Supplies Pty Ltd v Canon Finance Australia Ltd”. This gave me the links to the case. I gather that the link could also be better located using the advanced search option that is available with this site. There were two search results that were available.