Возможно, это относится к case-law.
leading case - судебный прецедент, прецедентное дело (в общем праве дело, имеющее принципиальное значение для аналогичных дел в связи с толкованием того или иного принятого ранее закона)

leading judgement - судебное решение, являющееся образцом для последующих

Вот эти примеры, похоже, проясняют:

The Court of Appeal has finally handed down its long-awaited *leading judgement* on domestic violence and contact, delayed to incorporate the recommendations of a recent review by the Advisory Board on Family Law [see Let's make law (by the back door) below]. Though presented as a landmark ruling it is widely seen as merely formalising a situation that has long prevailed in family proceedings.
The Court of Appeal is expected to hand down a *leading judgement* in the next few weeks, as a number of cases have been put on hold specifically to allow the judges involved time to absorb and reflect the report's recommendations.


http://www.fnf.org.uk/readem.htm





--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2006-07-07 13:13:58 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

По-моему, вот тут "leading judgement" даже противопоставляется "Minority judgement"

У меня тут ещё проклюнулся вариант (основываясь на противопоставлении "leading judgement" даже противопоставляется "Minority judgement"), что это значит

Решение судьи от правящей партии
vs
решение судьи от партии меньшинства

Вот проанализируйте этот отрывок:
With particularly good timing, on a day when the country was gripped by snow and ice, Newman J gave judgement in Sandhar v Department of Transport [2004] EWHC 28 (QB). Until 1978 the law recognised no liability on a highway authority who failed to take precautions to remove ice and snow from the roads and as a result of which injury was sustained. In Haydon v Kent CC [1978] QB 343 the Court of Appeal by a majority held there was such a duty under Section 41 of the Highways Act 1959 (now the 1980 Act) and breach of the duty gave rise to a right to compensation. This remained the law until 15th June 2000 when the House of Lords gave judgement in Goodes v East Sussex CC [2000] 1WLR 1356. It overruled Haydon with Lord Hoffman in the *leading judgement following the minority judgement* of Lord Denning in Haydon. They held that before 1959 the inhabitants of an area were not under an obligation to remove transitory hazards such as ice and snow. The Act had to be interpreted in the context of the common law obligations and the duty of maintenance under Section 41 did not extend to transitory hazards.


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2 hrs (2006-07-07 14:18:02 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Я уже подумывала было, что это решение, принимаемое именно by Lords Justice в Court of Appeal. Пока доказательств не нашла.

Похоже, всё-таки, речь о прецедентном судебном решении/заключении, вот ещё один, вроде, подтверждающий:
By a majority (Lord Lowry dissenting) the House answered branch (a) of the certified question in the affirmative and branch (b) in the negative. In crystalline terms Lord Keith of Kinkel speaking for all the numbers of the majority ruled at p. 464 C-D: (1) The meaning of the relevant provisions must be determined by construing the statutory language without reference to the report which preceded it, namely the Eighth Report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee on Theft and Related Offences (1966) (Cmnd. 2977). (2) The observations of Lord Roskill in Morris [1984] A.C. 320 were unnecessary for the decision of that case; that they were in clear conflict with the ratio of Lawrence [1972] A.C. 626; and that they were wrong. (3) Lawrence must be accepted as authoritative and correct, and "there is no question of it now being right to depart from it." At the same time Lord Keith, at p. 463 H, endorsed the judgment of Parker L.J. in the civil case of Dobson v. General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation Plc. [1990] 1 Q.B. 274 where Parker L.J. highlighted the conflict between Lawrence [1972] A.C. 626 and Morris [1984] A.C. 320 and chose to follow Lawrence. (4) Any act may be an appropriation notwithstanding that it was done with the consent or authorisation of the owner. In Gomez [1993] A.C. 442 the House was expressly invited to hold that "there is no appropriation where the entire proprietary interest passes": at 448B. That submission was rejected. The *leading judgment* in Gomez was therefore in terms which unambiguously rule out the submission that section 3(1) does not apply to a case of a gift duly carried out because in such a case the entire proprietary interest will have passed.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2 hrs (2006-07-07 14:39:36 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

И это снова я :)

Я таки поменяла своё мнение.
"leading judgment" употребляется исключительно применительно к Court of Appeal, и всегда какой-то лорд "gives" это самое leading judgment. А что такое Court of Appeal?
Апелляционный суд рассматривает жалобы на решения Высокого суда и Суда Короны.

То есть, в ответ на жалобы, Court of Appeal выдаёт...постановление/решение апелляционного суда.

Надеюсь, это моё последний вариант, по-моему, верный :)

ПОСТАНОВЛЕНИЕ АПЕЛЛЯЦИОННОГО СУДА
постановление апеляционного суда

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 8 days (2006-07-15 12:16:43 GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------

Ростислав, спасибо Вам!