Ensuring the uniformity of judicial practice is one of the most important tasks facing the judicial system. At the same time, the existence of a mechanism of prejudice in the procedural legislation raises the question of the ability of the courts to accept not only previously established facts, but also their legal qualification, which is di-rectly related to the issue of the uniform application of legal norms by the courts. The purpose of the study is to identify the relationship between prejudice and the uniform application of legal norms by the courts in civil and arbitration proceedings. To achieve this goal, the task is to distinguish between cases where the court must ac-cept the legal position of the previous court, from cases where the court is free in legal assessments of prejudicial facts. The task was also set to consider various manifestations of the uniform application of legal norms by the courts, as well as their relationship with prejudice. Dialectical, formal-legal and hermeneutical methods were used to achieve the goal and objectives of the study. As part of the study, criteria were formulated for identifying cases where the court must accept the legal position of the previous court. At the same time, the author made conclusions about the relationship and correlation between the legally established requirement for the uniformity of judicial practice and the property of prejudice of judicial acts.