Willers v Joyce (No 2)
The Supreme Court explained when English courts may follow a decision of the Privy Council rather than an inconsistent domestic precedent.
Facts
Mr Willers sued Mr Joyce, as the executor of a businessman's estate, for the tort of malicious prosecution of civil proceedings. Whether that tort existed in English law depended on the effect of a decision of the Privy Council in Crawford Adjusters (Cayman) Ltd v Sagicor General Insurance (Cayman) Ltd [2014] AC 366, which recognised the tort, and an earlier decision of the House of Lords, Gregory v Portsmouth City Council [2000] 1 AC 419, which had cast doubt on it.
Legal principle
In a separate judgment on precedent, the Supreme Court held that a decision of the Privy Council is not binding on English courts, but may be highly persuasive. Lord Neuberger said that where a decision of the Privy Council is inconsistent with an English decision that is binding on the court, the court must follow the English decision. However, the Privy Council may, in an appropriate case, expressly direct that domestic courts should treat its decision as representing the law of England and Wales, and the courts should then follow it. In the main judgment, the Supreme Court held that the tort of malicious prosecution of civil proceedings exists in English law.
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.
