Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent)
The House of Lords announced that it would depart from its own previous decisions when it appeared right to do so.
Facts
Since London Street Tramways Co Ltd v London County Council [1898] AC 375, the House of Lords had treated itself as strictly bound by its own previous decisions. This was thought to produce injustice and to restrict the proper development of the law. In 1966, before hearing the day's appeals, Lord Gardiner LC read a statement on behalf of himself and the other Lords of Appeal in Ordinary.
Legal principle
The statement said that their Lordships regarded the use of precedent as an indispensable foundation on which to decide what is the law and its application to individual cases, providing certainty and a basis for orderly development. However, too rigid adherence to precedent may lead to injustice in a particular case and unduly restrict the proper development of the law. They therefore proposed to modify their practice and, while treating former decisions as normally binding, to depart from a previous decision when it appears right to do so. They would bear in mind the danger of disturbing retrospectively the basis on which contracts, settlements of property and fiscal arrangements had been entered into, and the especial need for certainty in the criminal law. The UK Supreme Court has adopted the same approach.
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
- 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
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.
