- This topic has 9 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
Greetings Tutor hope you are doing well..
Along with the Study Text i was going through some additional documents for the purpose of reference and additional knowledge related to English Legal System.One thing that caught my attention was that in the Study Text it has mentioned that “High Court is bound by it’s own decision”.
But in a Document of University of London it has stated that “High Court does not regard itself as bound by it’s own previous decision, alright they are regarded as highly persuasive”.
Can you please help me in understanding whether High Court is bound by it’s own decision or not?
How interesting! Vikas, to the best of my knowledge, the High Court IS bound by its own previous decisions so I’m quite intrigued by your post informing me otherwise.
That’s my best answer, I’m afraid. If you can tell me definitively that I’m wrong then I would appreciate that as a learning exercise but, otherwise, I’m sticking to my guns!
Please do let me know if you have reference to an authority to support your post!
Greetings Tutor hope you are doing well. After going through study text and several website i have come up with the following.
1) The High Court is not strictly bound to follow its own previous decisions, but they are highly persuasive: “the modern practice is that a judge of first instance will as a matter of judicial comity usually follow the decision of another judge of first instance unless he is convinced that that judgment was wrong” (Halsbury’s Laws of England, Civil Procedure, vol 11, para 32).
2) A Divisional Court is bound by the House of Lords and the Court of Appeal and normally follows a previous decision of another Divisional Court but may depart from it if it believes that the previous decision was wrong: R v Greater Manchester Coroner, ex parte Tal [1985] QB 67.
3)In Coral Reef Limited v Silverbond Enterprises Ltd and Another [2016] EWHC 874 (Ch), Master Matthews sitting in the Chancery Division of the High Court considered whether and how far a master is bound by the decision of a High Court judge, a question on which there is little authority.
He concluded that a master exercising the jurisdiction of the High Court is bound by relevant decisions of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, but is not bound by a relevant decision of a High Court judgeBased upon everything that i learnt so far going through several website dealing with Hierarchy of Judiciary in English Legal System.
What i believe is that a High Court Judge sits alone, whereas the Division Court of High Court comprises of a Panel of Judges.
So the Single Judge of High Court is not strictly bounded by decision of another (single) Judge rather consider it persuasive. However is bounded by the the Decision of Divisional Court.Similarly Divisional Court is not binded by its own past decision, but consider it highly persuasive
I believe the current idiom is ‘my bad’
Very well done and well explained. My only defence is that both the authoritative cases to which you refer are dated 1985 and 2016 and therefore substantially post-date my own research into this area for the purposes of note writing and video presentations.
I sincerely thank you for your efforts 🙂
I largely agree. Here is what Wikipedia has to say about the matter on its article on the High Court of Justiciary-“In principle, the High Court is bound by its own previous decisions, but there are conflicting authorities as to what extent this is”
I found an earlier pertinent case from 1947-
“Huddersfield Police Authority v Watson, is important principally because in it for the first time the Divisional Court held that it, too, was bound by its own decisions, subject to the same exceptions as those set out by the Court of Appeal in Young’s case. The case is also important because the view was put forward for the first time that the per incuriam principle applied where an earlier court had acted in ignorance or forgetfulness of a binding precedence and not merely a statute or statutory rule.”
The above quote is from the following source-
The Modern Law Review Vol 19, No. 2, March 1956. The relevant part is “Stare Decisis in the Court of Appeal” by G.F. Peter Mason. The above quote is from page 140.I think some of the problem with this topic is a degree of circular reasoning seems to be involved. In the above case it is suggested that the High Court binds itself with limited exceptions. However, this precedence itself is being set by the King’s bench division of the High Court. Ideally a case would have to be decided at a higher level to confirm this precedent.
The “Young’s” case mentioned is Young v Bristol Aeroplane Company Ltd (1944).
As always, Jon, that’s very helpful and illuminating.
I’m trying to put this minutia into a ‘fair’ ACCA question … and I’m struggling. Yes, the High Court is bound by itself, but not necessarily.
Well, that’s a perfectly satisfactory final position to be the subject of an exam question for a well-prepared accountancy student.
Well done to both of you for your valiant attempts to clear what appears to remain a judicial practical uncertainty.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.