In diverse legal systems, the role of judicial precedents has consistently been a central and contested issue. Alongside binding precedents, there also exists a category of judicial decisions referred to as non-binding precedents, which, although lacking binding force in a structural sense, nonetheless exert a significant influence in guiding judicial interpretation and enhancing legal coherence. The aim of this article is to provide a precise conceptual clarification of non-binding precedents, their epistemological, normative, and functional foundations, and to conduct a comparative analysis of their position within the legal systems of Iran and England. In the English legal system, non-binding precedents are recognized as instruments for interpretive flexibility and the gradual development of law. By contrast, in the Iranian legal system, this concept has not been formally acknowledged; yet, in practice, instances of it can be observed in the form of advisory opinions, judicial interpretations, and implicit references by judges. Drawing upon contemporary legal theories such as legal realism, pragmatism, and coherentism, this article seeks to elucidate the theoretical and practical dimensions of non-binding precedents and, by identifying structural deficiencies within the Iranian judiciary, to propose recommendations for the gradual institutionalization of this concept. The principal contribution of this study is the presentation of a theoretical and practical model for employing non-binding judicial precedents in the service of strengthening coherence, advancing development, and promoting the dynamism of Iran’s legal system.