英语论文网

there might be a risk of injustice from the old precedent, and the proper development of the law would be restricted, and therefore the departure was the appropriate way to remedy the injustice. Following this it was said in (Fitzleet Estates Ltd. v. Cherry) that for the Lords to overrule itself there would have to be a change of circumstances that would make them to deviate from the old precedent.

法院上诉-THE COURT OF APPEAL

The Court of Appeal cannot overrule the House of Lords as of precedent, but tried to in (Morris v. Crown Office) (and later in (Miliangos v. George Frank Ltd.)), arguing that a Lords decision must have 'overlooked ... [or] misunderstood ... [the existing common law, and that the Lords decision was] hopelessly illogical and inconsistent', and directed the lower courts to ignore the decision. This attitude was overruled with great vigour, since it was clear that the Lords had not, as claimed, overlooked the existing common law.

(Cassell and Co. Ltd. v. Broome) the House of Lords said that the Court of Appeal could not overrule the House even if it was per incuriam, and in (Miliangos) it rejected the idea that the Court could now overrule on the grounds of 'cessante ratione cessat ipsa lex'.

However in (Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd) it was held that the Court of Appeal can depart from its own previous decision subject to the following exceptions:

If there are two previous decisions of Court of Appeal which contradicts with each other, then the Court of Appeal is free to choose from whichever it wishes.

If any decision of the Court of Appeal contradicts with the decision of House of Lords which was not expressly overruled by the House then the Court of Appeal is not bound by its own decision.

If any previous decision of the Court of Appeal is a per incuriam decision then the Court of Appeal is not bound by that decision.

The introduction of European element in the English Legal System has created two more exceptions and they are:

If the decision of the Court of Appeal is in conflict with the direction given by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) then it is free to depart from its own previous decision and follow ECJ.

If any decision of the Court of Appeal is in conflict with the decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) then it is free to depart from its decision and follow ECtHR.

In principle there is no difference in the application of precedent in Court of Appeal Civil and Criminal Division. However the practice of precedent is more flexibly applied in criminal division as an individual's liberty and freedom may be at stake. However the court must show that the previous decision was misunderstood or a new circumstance has evolved which made its decision unsafe.

Decisions of House of Lords (HL) is binding in Court of Appeal (CA) where as the decision of the Privy Council (PC) has mere persuasive authority. In case of any conflict between the HL and PC decision then the CA is bound by the decision given by HL. However, under exceptional circumstances the CA may choose to follow the PC.

In (Davis v. Johnson) Lord Denning said 'It is said that, if an error has been made, this court has no option but to continue the error and leave it to be corrected by the House of Lords.

The answ