Practice Statement Key Cases
- Created by: uisay17
- Created on: 04-05-16 12:10
View mindmap
- Practice Statement Cases
- In London Street Tramways v London County Council (1898) - HoLs held that certainty in the law was more important than the possibility of hardship caused by following a previous precedent.
- Conway v Rimmer (1968) - Ps 1st use to overrule a previous decision. Case only concerned a technical point on the discovery of documents.
- Before 1898, HoLs was free to overrule its previous decisions, where it saw fit in the interests of flexibility.
- Herrington v British Railways Board (BRB) (1972) - 1st major use of Ps. Case involved deciding whether or not a person owed a duty of care to a child trespasser. Overruled Addie v Dumbreck (1929) - D only owed a duty of care, if child suffered injuries caused deliberately or recklessly.
- After 1898 and before 1966, HoLs was bound by its own past decisions, but this made the law inflexible and unable to adapt fast enough to social change.
- Practice Statement used sparely in the first few years after 1966, HoLs reluctant to use PS.
- In 1966, the decision that the HoLs was bound by its past decision changed. The Practice Statement was released, HoLs could depart from a previous decision 'where it appears right to do so'.
- R v Shivpuri (1986) - Ps used in a criminal case for the 1st time. HoLs used PS to overrule earlier decision of Anderton v Ryan.
- Pepper v Hart (1993) - HoLs ruled that Hansard could be consulted when trying to find Parliaments intention. Overruled previous decision of Davis v Johnson (1979)
- R v G and R (2003) - A important criminal cases, PS used to overrule the decision made in the earlier case of R v Caldwell (1982), long been the main authority for choosing if someone was reckless or not. Only considered reckless, if a person realised there's a risk/damage but still went ahead.
Comments
No comments have yet been made