CASES - LSR
Study online at https://quizlet.com/_ar0exs
1. Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd Why is it important? Explained the
[1944] KB 718 exceptions of the CA being bound
by own previous decisions.
2. Davis v Johnson [1978] 2 WLR 182 Why is it important? Extended the
list of exceptions of the CA being
bound by own previous decisions.
3. Singh v Secretary of State for the Why is it important? Affirms the de-
Home Department; Khalid v Secre- cision in Young.
tary of State for the Home Department
[2015] EWCA Civ 74
4. Tiverton Estates Ltd v Wearwell Ltd Why is it important? Shows that if
[1975] Ch 146 there are conflicting CA decisions,
it can pick which case to follow.
5. Law v Jones [1974] Ch 112 Why is it important? Highlights that
the courts can follow older prece-
dents rather than a more recent in-
consistent one.
6. Family Housing Association v Jones Why is it important? Shows that the
[1990] 1 WLR 779 CA had ignored its own precedent
due to being in conflict with later HL
decisions.
7. Morelle v Wakeling [1995] 2 QB 379 Why is it important? Highlighted
that decisions being ignored on the
basis of a ruling of per incuriam are
'of the rarest occurence.'
8. Williams v Fawcett [1996] QB 604 Why is it important? Another case
that has a previous decision given
per incuriam.
9. R. (on the application of W) v Lambeth Why is it important? Another case
LBC [2002] EWCA Civ 613 that has a previous decision given
per incuriam, only 6 months after.
1/2
Study online at https://quizlet.com/_ar0exs
1. Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd Why is it important? Explained the
[1944] KB 718 exceptions of the CA being bound
by own previous decisions.
2. Davis v Johnson [1978] 2 WLR 182 Why is it important? Extended the
list of exceptions of the CA being
bound by own previous decisions.
3. Singh v Secretary of State for the Why is it important? Affirms the de-
Home Department; Khalid v Secre- cision in Young.
tary of State for the Home Department
[2015] EWCA Civ 74
4. Tiverton Estates Ltd v Wearwell Ltd Why is it important? Shows that if
[1975] Ch 146 there are conflicting CA decisions,
it can pick which case to follow.
5. Law v Jones [1974] Ch 112 Why is it important? Highlights that
the courts can follow older prece-
dents rather than a more recent in-
consistent one.
6. Family Housing Association v Jones Why is it important? Shows that the
[1990] 1 WLR 779 CA had ignored its own precedent
due to being in conflict with later HL
decisions.
7. Morelle v Wakeling [1995] 2 QB 379 Why is it important? Highlighted
that decisions being ignored on the
basis of a ruling of per incuriam are
'of the rarest occurence.'
8. Williams v Fawcett [1996] QB 604 Why is it important? Another case
that has a previous decision given
per incuriam.
9. R. (on the application of W) v Lambeth Why is it important? Another case
LBC [2002] EWCA Civ 613 that has a previous decision given
per incuriam, only 6 months after.
1/2
