Davis v Johnson
The Court of Appeal remains bound by its own decisions and cannot adopt its own version of the Practice Statement.
Facts
Miss Davis and Mr Johnson were unmarried partners who were joint tenants of a council flat. Mr Johnson was violent towards her, and she left with their child. She applied for an injunction under the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976 to exclude him from the flat. Two recent decisions of the Court of Appeal had held that the Act did not allow a court to exclude a person from property in which he had a proprietary interest. A specially constituted Court of Appeal of five judges, led by Lord Denning MR, refused to follow those decisions and granted the injunction.
Legal principle
The House of Lords agreed that the Act allowed the injunction to be granted, but rejected the Court of Appeal's view that it was free to depart from its own earlier decisions. Lord Diplock said that the rule in Young v Bristol Aeroplane, with its three exceptions, was well established and binding on the Court of Appeal, and that the Practice Statement applied only to the House of Lords. Lord Denning had argued that the Court of Appeal should have the same freedom, but the House reaffirmed that, in the interests of certainty, the Court of Appeal must follow its own decisions.
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
- Broome v Cassell & Co Ltd [1972] AC 1027
- Conway v Rimmer [1968] AC 910
- 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.
