Judges' Need to Follow Previous Precedent

Judges' Need to Follow Previous Precedent

The lower courts are bound by the House of Lords so they have to apply

their rules as if they were applying a statute. It was decided after

the case 'London street tramways v London county council (1898)' that

the House of Lords would be bound by its own previous decisions. This

was a case during the nineteenth century, during the Victorian times

when it was important to be consistent and certain. However during the

twentieth century both society and the law developed and some

decisions made in previous cases were now unsuitable, so the House of

Lords made a Practice Statement in 1966. As a result of the Practice

Statement 1966 the House of Lords does not always need to follow its

own past decisions and can depart from a previous decision when it

appears right to do so. The Practice Statement gives the House of

Lords flexibility and they can avoid injustice from happening.

In the landmark case 'British railways board v Herrington (1972)' the

House of lords overruled 'Addie v Dumbreck' using the powers of the

practice statement and held British Rail liable for compensation. The

case 'The Joanna Oldendorf (1974)' overruled 'the Aello (1960)'

because the views of the House of Lords on liability for such

situations had changed. In the case 'Murphy v Brentwood District

Council (1990)' the House of Lords overruled 'Anns v London Borough of

Merton (1977)' concerning a duty of care to the purchaser of a house.

The case 'Conway v Rimmer (1968)' overruled 'Duncan v Cammell, Laird &

Co (1942)' on discovery of documents. The case 'Vestey v Commissioners

of inland Revenue (1979)' overruled the decision i...

... middle of paper ...

... a

court states that a precedent is wrong and creates a different legal

rule in its place. The earlier precedent is said to be overruled.

Reversing is when a higher court overturns the decision of a lower

court on appeal. In 'Re Pinochet (1999)' the House of Lords reversed a

previous decision for the first time.

In conclusion, the House of Lords is bound by its previous decisions.

However as a result of the Practice Statement in 1966, the House of

Lords has some flexibility and can depart from a previous decision

when it appears right to do so. The Court of Appeal is generally bound

by its own decisions but there are some exceptions as shown in 'Young

v Bristol Aeroplane Co (1944)'. The lower courts do not have that much

power as they can only avoid following precedent by distinguishing,

overruling and reversing.