House of Lords and Judicial Precedent.

Until 1898 the House Of Lords had the power to overrule it’s own previous decisions. However in 1898 London Street Tramways v London County Council.

The lords held that certainty in the law was more important than the possibility of individual hardship being caused by having to follow a past decision. Thus from 1898 the Lords regarded itself as bound by it’s own previous decisions unless they were made ‘per incuriam’, in error, which is where the Lords have ignored a statute.

However this decision became increasingly unsatisfactory as the law could not alter to meet changing social conditions, nor could it alter to change wrong decisions expect per incuriam ones, except by passing a new act of Parliament DPP v Smith (1961). The Lords had ruled that intention could be judged objectively. This was out of line with previous common law and held to be wrong however it took a statute to change this ruling:1967 Criminal Justice Act.

Because of the problems being caused by the House Of Lords voluntary abdication of it’s power to change it’s own decisions and particularly because of criticism caused by Smith. In 1966 Lord Gardener the Lord Chancellor issued a Practice Statement.

Initially the Lords were reluctant to use this new power, but since the 1970’s it has been much more willing to apply it in both criminal and civil law.

Economic loss in the law of Negligence.

This was an important decision because Anns’s had led to considerable complexity and uncertainty in the law. In the criminal law where the liberty and reputation of the subject is at stake the Lords has also been willing to over-rule itself. In one case only a year after the previous decision. – Shivpuri (1986) over-ruled Anderton v Ryan (1985)

Court of Appeal and the Doctrine Of Precedent.

Civil Division.

The Court of Appeal is bound to follow it’s own previous decisions. There are only three exceptions to this rule and these exceptions were identified in Young v Bristol Aeroplane Company (1944)

The case involved the workman’s appeal against a High Court decision, barring him from claiming damages after he had already accepted compensation under the 1925 Workman’s Act. The appeal judges in deciding that they could not hold up the appeal emphasized the only circumstances under which the appeal court could overturn one of it’s own previous decisions. These are:

1. Where previous decisions of the court of appeal conflict.

2. Where a decision which has not been expressly over-ruled cannot stand with a subsequent decision of the Lords.

3. Where a decision has been made ‘per incuriam’.

However following the 1966 Practice Statement some appeal court judges and in particular Lord Denning felt that they too should have made scope to over-rule their own decisions.

The Court of Appeal and the Young Guidelines.

Padberry v Peak had been wrongly decided ‘per incuriam’ because of ignorance of a relevant statute. The Court of Appeal explained that they needed to do this because 1) the case was unlikely to be appealed to the House Of Lords for cost reasons so it couldn’t be over-ruled there and 2) because it involved the common problem of divorce settlements it would be likely to affect lots of other couples in the future.

The Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal.

This has more latitude to deviate from it’s own pervious decisions because life and liberty are at stake.