Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Randy Kryn (talk | contribs) italicize title |
Tom Morris (talk | contribs) added some references |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
There are a few other possible exceptions that may be worth considering. These are:{{Citation needed|date=February 2010}} |
There are a few other possible exceptions that may be worth considering. These are:{{Citation needed|date=February 2010}} |
||
#Decisions on [[interlocutory]] appeals,<ref name="Wheeler2006">{{cite book|author=John Wheeler|title=Essentials of the English Legal System|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XhK8tx4qNqkC&pg=PA59|year=2006|publisher=Pearson Longman|isbn=978-1-4058-1167-5|page=59}}</ref> for example, decisions taken by a Court of Appeal of only two judges.<ref name="McLeod1999">{{cite book|author=T. Ian McLeod|title=Legal Method|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=NDxdDwAAQBAJ|date=11 November 1999|publisher=Macmillan International Higher Education|isbn=978-1-349-15075-5|page=187}}</ref> |
|||
#Decisions on [[interlocutory]] appeals, for example, decisions taken by a Court of Appeal of only two judges. |
|||
#Where the decision from the House of Lords was made on an unwarranted assumption. |
#Where the decision from the House of Lords was made on an unwarranted assumption. |
||
#That the decision was made before the ''[[Human Rights Act 1998|Human Rights Act]]'' 1998, and so may be contrary to it. (see Culnane v Morris & Anor [2005] EWHC 2438, [2006] 2 All ER 149 (regarding qualified privilege) overruling Plummer v Chairman [1962] 1 WLR 1469 & Miller v Bull [2009] EWHC 2640 QB, [2009] All ER (D) 281 (Oct) (regarding a time-extension to comply with the formalities under the Election Petition Rules 1960) overruling Ahmed v Kennedy [2002] EWCA Civ 1793, [2002] All ER (D) 171; the latter though heard after the HRA 1998 came into effect had failed to consider any human rights violations.) |
#That the decision was made before the ''[[Human Rights Act 1998|Human Rights Act]]'' 1998, and so may be contrary to it. (see Culnane v Morris & Anor [2005] EWHC 2438, [2006] 2 All ER 149 (regarding qualified privilege) overruling Plummer v Chairman [1962] 1 WLR 1469 & Miller v Bull [2009] EWHC 2640 QB, [2009] All ER (D) 281 (Oct) (regarding a time-extension to comply with the formalities under the Election Petition Rules 1960) overruling Ahmed v Kennedy [2002] EWCA Civ 1793, [2002] All ER (D) 171; the latter though heard after the HRA 1998 came into effect had failed to consider any human rights violations.) |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
==References== |
==References== |
||
{{Reflist}} |
|||
* ''[http://www.justis.com/titles/iclr_s4420113.html Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd]'' |
* ''[http://www.justis.com/titles/iclr_s4420113.html Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd]'' |
||
Revision as of 19:13, 23 May 2019
Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd ([1944] KB 718 CA) was an English court case that established that the Court of Appeal is bound to follow its own decisions and those of courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction, except in the following cases:
- the court is entitled and bound to decide which of two previous conflicting decisions of its own it will follow;
- the court is bound to refuse to follow a decision of its own which cannot stand with a decision of the House of Lords;
- the court is not bound to follow a decision of its own if the decision was given per incuriam, e.g., where a statute or a rule having statutory effect which would have affected the decision was not brought to the attention of the earlier court.
There are a few other possible exceptions that may be worth considering. These are:[citation needed]
- Decisions on interlocutory appeals,[1] for example, decisions taken by a Court of Appeal of only two judges.[2]
- Where the decision from the House of Lords was made on an unwarranted assumption.
- That the decision was made before the Human Rights Act 1998, and so may be contrary to it. (see Culnane v Morris & Anor [2005] EWHC 2438, [2006] 2 All ER 149 (regarding qualified privilege) overruling Plummer v Chairman [1962] 1 WLR 1469 & Miller v Bull [2009] EWHC 2640 QB, [2009] All ER (D) 281 (Oct) (regarding a time-extension to comply with the formalities under the Election Petition Rules 1960) overruling Ahmed v Kennedy [2002] EWCA Civ 1793, [2002] All ER (D) 171; the latter though heard after the HRA 1998 came into effect had failed to consider any human rights violations.)
The decision of the Court of Appeal in R v James and Karimi [2006] EWCA Crim 14 may also have future implications regarding precedent and Privy Council decisions; the Court of Appeal deciding to follow the Privy Council ruling in AG for Jersey v Holley [2005] as opposed to the contentious House of Lords decision in R v Smith (Morgan James) [2001] in a case concerning defendant characteristics and provocation under s.3 of the Homicide Act 1957.
References
- ^ John Wheeler (2006). Essentials of the English Legal System. Pearson Longman. p. 59. ISBN 978-1-4058-1167-5.
- ^ T. Ian McLeod (11 November 1999). Legal Method. Macmillan International Higher Education. p. 187. ISBN 978-1-349-15075-5.