Broome v Cassell & Co Ltd
The Court of Appeal must follow decisions of the House of Lords, even if it considers them wrongly decided.
Facts
Captain Broome, a naval officer, sued the publishers and author of a book about a wartime naval disaster, the destruction of a convoy, which he claimed defamed him. He was awarded exemplary damages. In Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129, the House of Lords had restricted exemplary damages to three categories. In this case, the Court of Appeal, led by Lord Denning MR, said that Rookes v Barnard had been decided per incuriam and need not be followed.
Legal principle
The House of Lords upheld the award of damages, holding that the case fell within one of the categories set out in Rookes v Barnard. It strongly rejected the Court of Appeal's approach. Lord Hailsham LC said that, in the hierarchical system of courts which exists in this country, it is necessary for each lower tier, including the Court of Appeal, to accept loyally the decisions of the higher tiers. The Court of Appeal was not entitled to treat a decision of the House of Lords as per incuriam or to advise judges to ignore it.
Related cases on judicial precedent
- Attorney General for Jersey v Holley [2005] UKPC 23, [2005] 2 AC 580
- Austin v Southwark London Borough Council [2010] UKSC 28, [2011] 1 AC 355
- British Railways Board v Herrington [1972] AC 877
- Conway v Rimmer [1968] AC 910
- Davis v Johnson [1979] AC 264
- Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council [1999] 2 AC 349
- Knauer v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 9, [2016] AC 908
- Miliangos v George Frank (Textiles) Ltd [1976] AC 443
Studying english legal system? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
