9814647
| Question | Answer |
| Automatic Telephone and Electric Co. Ltd v Registrar of Restrictive Trading Agreements 1965 | Once there has been a deicsion on a point of law, that deicsion immediately becomes a precedent for later cases. The Court of Appeal had made a decision in Schwepps Ltd Registrar of Restrictive Trading Agreements 1965 on discovery of documents. One judge, Willmer LJ disagreed Later on the same day, the same point of law arose in Automatic Telephone and Electric Co Ltd and was heard by the same three judges. This time Willmer LJ did not disagree stating that he was now bound by the previous case. |
| Colchester Estates (Cardiff) v Carlton Industries PLC 1984 | The High Court is bound by decisions of all the courts above and in turn it binds the lower courts. High Court Judges do not have to follow each other's decisions but will usually do so. In this case it was held that where there were two earlier decisions which conflicted, then, provided the first decision had been fully considered in the later case, that later decision shoud be followed. |
| London Street Tramways v London County Council 1898 | The House of Lords held that certainty was more important in the law than the possibility of individual hardship be caused through having to follow a past decision. |
| DPP v Smith 1961 | Before 1966 the only way to change an unsatisfactory deicsion of the House of Lords was to pass a new Act of Parliament. This happened in the law on intention as an element of a criminal offence. The House of Lords had ruled in this case that D could be guilty of murder if a reasonable person would have foreseen that death or very serious injury might result from D's actions. This decision was criticised as it meant that D could be guilty even if he had not intended to cause death or serious injury, not even realised that his actions might have that effect. Eventually Parliament changed the law by passing the Criminal Justice Act 1967 |
| Conway v Rimmer 1968 | The first use of the Practice Statement. However this was only a technical use on discovery of documents. |
| Herrington v British Railways Board 1972 | The first official use of the Practice Statement. This involved the law on the duty of care owed to child trespassers and overruled the earlier case of Addie v Dumbreck 1929. |
| Jones v Secretary of State for Social Services 1972 | This case illustrates the reluctance of the House of Lords to use the Practice Statement. This case invovled the interpretation of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1946 and four out of seven judges hearing the case regarded the earlier decision in Re Dowling 1967 as being wrong. Despite this the Lords refused to overrule that earlier case, preferring to keep to the idea that certainty was the most important feature of precedent. |
| Knuller (Publishing, Printing and Promotions) Ltd v DPP 1973 | The House of Lords were still reluctant to use the Practice Statement in this case. They said that just because they believe an earlier decision to be wrong doesnt mean that they should automatically use the Practice Statement to overrule it. |
| Miliangos v George Frank (Textiles) Ltd 1976 | The House of Lords used the Practicce Statement to overrule a previous judgment that damages could only be awarded in sterling. |
| Pepper v Hart 1993 | The House of Lords used the Practice Statement to overrule the previous ban on the use of Hansard in Statutory Interpretation. |
| R v Shivpuri 1986 | The first use of the Practice Statement in Criminal Law. This case overruled the decision in Anderton v Ryan 1985 on attempting to do the impossible. The House of Lords recognised that they might sometimes make errors and the most important thing then was to put the law right |
| R v G and Another 2003 | The Hosue of Lords overruled their previous decision in the case of Metropolitain Police Commissioner v Caldwell 1982 on the law of cirminal damage and recklessness. |
| Austin v London Borough of Southwark 2010 | The Supreme Court confirmed that the power to use the Practice Statement had been transferred from the House of Lords to the Supreme Court when it was formed in 2009 |
| Knauer v Ministry of Justice 2016 | The Supreme Court used the Practice Statement to overrule two previous decisions of the House of Lords regarding the date damages should be calculated in the law of tort. |
| Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd 1944 | One division of the Court of Appeal will not bind the other however, within each division, decisions are normally binding. The only exceptions to this are: - where there are conflciting decisions in past Court of Appeal cases, the court can choose which one it will follow and which it will reject - where there is a decision of the Supreme Court which effectively overrules a Court of Appeal decision, the Court of Appeal must follow the Supreme Court - where the decision was made per incuriam, that is carelessly or by mistake becuase a relevant Act of Parliament or toehr regulation has not been considered by the Court. |
| Davis v Johnson 1979 | Confirmed the case of Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd 1944 |
| Williams v Fawcett 1986 | The Court of Appeal used the per incuriam exception. The Court refused to follow previous decisions becuase these had been based on a misunderstanding of the County Court rules dealing with procedure for committing to prison those who break court undertakings. |
| Rickards v Rickards 1989 | Lord Donaldson said that it would only be in 'rare and exceptional cases' that the Court of Appeal would be justified in refusing to follow a previous decision. |
| R v Taylor 1960, R v Gould 1968, R v Spencer 1985 | The Court of Appeal Criminal Division has an extra exception. It can refuse to follow a previous decision if the law has been misapplied or misunderstood. This extra exception exists becuase people's liberty is involved. |
| R v R 1991 | An example of persuasive precedent from courts lower in the hierarchy. The House of Lords agreed with and followed the same reasoning as the Court of Appeal in deciding that a man could be guilty of raping his wife. |
| A-G for Jersey v Holley 2005 | An example of persuasive precedent from decisions of the Privy Council. The Privy Coucil ruled that in the defence of provocationD is to be judged by the standard of a person having ordinary powers of self-control. This was contrary to an earlier judgement by the House of Lords. In 2005 and 2006 the Court of Appeal followed the Privy Council decision rather than the decision of the House of Lords. |
| R v Howe 1987 and R v Gotts 1992 | An example of persuasive precedent from a statement made obiter dicta. The House of Lords ruled that duress could not be a defence to a charge of murder and said, obiter, that is should not be a defence to attempted murder. When R v Gotts 1992 came before the courts the Court of Appeal followed the persuasive precedent in Howe 1992. |
| Rose & Frank v Crompton Bros 1974 | An exmaple of persuasive precedent from a dissenting judgement. Where the House of Lords was persuaded to follow the reasoning of the dissenting judgement in the Court of Appeal on one point in the case. |
| R v Bentham 2003 | An example of persuasive [recedent from decisiosn of courts in other countries. The Court was invited to consider the Canadian case of R v Sloan 1974. However, they decided agaisnt it. |
| Lambeth London Borough Council v Kay and Price v Leeds City Council 2006 | An example of persuasive precedent from decisions of the ECtHR. The House of Lords ruled that English courts had to follow their own rules of precedent. It was for English courts to decide how the principles set out by the ECtHR were to be applied. |
| Balfour v Balfour 1919 and Merritt v Merritt 1971 | Illustrates distinguishing. Merritt and Merritt had different material facts from Balfour and Blafour and so the Court was able to distinguish the two cases and so was not bound by the precedent from Blafour and Blafour. |
0 comments
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.