Status of Privy Council decisions in the courts of England and Wales (Willers v Joyce)
In October 2026 a High Court judge in London is trying a common law claim in England and Wales. The defendant, Okonjo Ltd, relies on a 2018 decision of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) which is directly in point. The claimant, Priya Raman, relies on a 2024 decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on an appeal from an overseas jurisdiction whose common law on the point is the same as that of England and Wales. The Board said that the 2018 Court of Appeal decision was wrong, but it did not direct that courts in England and Wales should treat its own decision as representing English law. There is no relevant decision of the House of Lords or the Supreme Court.
Which of the following best describes how the High Court judge should proceed?
Choose one answer to see the reasoning.
Worked answer
Correct answer C: Follow the Court of Appeal decision, treating the Privy Council decision as being of great weight and persuasive value only.
THE RULE TO REMEMBER
A JCPC decision cannot override a precedent binding on an English judge unless the Board expressly directs that it represents English law; otherwise it is persuasive only, though of great weight.
Status of Privy Council decisions in the courts of England and Wales (Willers v Joyce)
In Willers v Joyce (No 2) [2016] UKSC 44 the Supreme Court held that the JCPC is not a court of the United Kingdom. Its decisions therefore cannot bind any judge of England and Wales and cannot override a decision of a court of England and Wales that would otherwise be a binding precedent for that judge. Subject to that, a JCPC decision on a common law issue should normally be regarded as being of great weight and persuasive value. Lord Neuberger added that where the Board decides that an earlier decision of the House of Lords, Supreme Court or Court of Appeal was wrong, it may expressly direct that domestic courts should treat the Board's decision as representing the law of England and Wales. No such direction was given here. The 2018 Court of Appeal decision binds the High Court under the ordinary rules of precedent, so the judge must follow it. Priya's remedy is to pursue an appeal, where an appellate court can consider the Board's reasoning.
Why A is wrong: Recency and the identity of the Board's members do not make a JCPC decision binding; it cannot override a precedent that binds the judge.
Why B is wrong: The JCPC is not a UK court, so its decision is not of equal standing with a Court of Appeal decision that binds the High Court.
Why D is wrong: JCPC decisions are persuasive only; they bind no judge of England and Wales unless the Board gives an express direction, which it did not.
Why E is wrong: There is no rule requiring a stay; the judge is bound by the Court of Appeal decision and must apply it now.
A little more practice done.
Related questions
Court of Appeal and its own previous decisions (Young v Bristol Aeroplane)
Which of the following best describes whether the Court of Appeal may decline to follow its 2019 decision?
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.