Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd
Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd ( 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:
- 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.
- That the decision was made before the Human Rights Act 1998, and so may be contrary to it. (see Culnane v Morris & Anor  EWHC 2438,  2 All ER 149 (regarding qualified privilege) overruling Plummer v Chairman  1 WLR 1469 & Miller v Bull  EWHC 2640 QB,  All ER (D) 281 (Oct) (regarding a time-extension to comply with the formalities under the Election Petition Rules 1960) overruling Ahmed v Kennedy  EWCA Civ 1793,  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  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  as opposed to the contentious House of Lords decision in R v Smith (Morgan James)  in a case concerning defendant characteristics and provocation under s.3 of the Homicide Act 1957.