Court of Appeal and its own previous decisions (Young v Bristol Aeroplane)
In 2026 the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) hears an appeal in which the respondent, Callum Reid, relies on a 2019 decision of a three-judge Court of Appeal that is directly in point. The appellant, Seren Price, shows that in 2019 the court was not referred to, and plainly did not have in mind, a rule having statutory force which governs the point and points the other way. Because of the importance of the issue, a five-judge court has been convened. There is no relevant decision of the House of Lords or Supreme Court.
Which of the following best describes whether the Court of Appeal may decline to follow its 2019 decision?
Choose one answer to see the reasoning.
Worked answer
Correct answer D: It may, because a decision made in ignorance of a binding statute is per incuriam, and the Court of Appeal need not follow its own per incuriam decisions.
THE RULE TO REMEMBER
The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) is bound by its own decisions unless they conflict, cannot stand with a House of Lords decision, or were given per incuriam; a larger panel has no greater power.
Court of Appeal and its own previous decisions (Young v Bristol Aeroplane)
In Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd [1944] KB 718 the Court of Appeal held that it is bound to follow its own previous decisions, subject to three exceptions: (1) it must decide which of two conflicting decisions of its own to follow; (2) it must refuse to follow a decision of its own which, though not expressly overruled, cannot stand with a decision of the House of Lords; and (3) it is not bound to follow a decision of its own given per incuriam. The court gave as the example of a per incuriam decision one given in ignorance of the terms of a statute or a rule having the force of a statute. The 2019 decision falls within that third exception.
Why A is wrong: Young recognises exceptions to the general rule, including decisions given per incuriam.
Why B is wrong: Young held that the full court has no greater powers than a division of three, so what a division cannot do the full court cannot do either.
Why C is wrong: Young rejected any general power to depart from a previous decision merely because the court considers it wrong.
Why E is wrong: Express overruling is not required for the exceptions to apply, and the relevant exception here is that the earlier decision was given per incuriam.
That's today's practice done. Another featured question tomorrow.
Related questions
Status of Privy Council decisions in the courts of England and Wales (Willers v Joyce)
Which of the following best describes how the High Court judge should proceed?
Duty to cite an adverse Court of Appeal decision the opponent has missed (Code 2.7)
Which of the following best describes what Daniel must do?
Using Hansard to interpret a statute: the conditions in Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593
Which of the following best describes the extent to which the court may consider this Parliamentary material?
A GOOD HABIT, DELIVERED
Tomorrow's question.
In your inbox.
One free question a day, with the answer and reasoning.
No course pitches. Just your daily practice.