THE CASE regulation OF THE COURT OF APPEAL The case regulation of the Court of Appeal

The case regulation of the Court of Appeal

Court of apply - Obligation to pursue preceding decisions

The Court of Appeal is bound to pursue its own conclusions and those of enclosures of co-ordinate jurisdiction, and the "full" court is in the same place in this respect as a partition of the court consisting of three members. The only exclusions to this direct are:-

(1) The court is deserving and compelled to conclude which of two inconsistent conclusions of its own it will follow;

(2) The court is compelled to deny pursuing a conclusion of its own which, though not expressly overruled, cannot, in its opinion, stand with a conclusion of the House of Lords;

(3) The court is not compelled to pursue a decision of its own if it is satisfied that the decision was granted per incuriam, for example, where a statute or a direct having statutory effect which would have influenced the decision was not conveyed to the vigilance of the previous court.

The plaintiff, who was engaged at the defendants' workshops, received wound in an misfortune originating out of and in the course of his paid work and obtained compensation under the Workmen's reimbursement Acts. He then searched to get damages in respect of the same misfortune, alleging that the defendants, in breach of their statutory duty, had failed to barrier one of their machines which he was using. In their protection, the defendants pleaded: "In the further alternative the defendants say that the plaintiff before the commencement of this action asserted and obtained reimbursement under the Workmen's Compensation actions in esteem of [the accident]. The plaintiff is thereby banned from retrieving damages in respect of the said accident." This plea was based ones. 29, sub-s. 1, of the Workmen's reimbursement proceeds, 1925. On the administration of a conclusion of the Court of apply in Perkinsv. Hugh Stevenson Sons, Ld. ([1940) 1 K. B. 56), s. The plaintiff appealed.

Paul K.C. and H. Barton for the plaintiff. No doubt Selwood v. Townley Coal Fireclay, ([1940] 1 K. B. 180), and Perkins v. Hugh Stevenson Sons, Ld. ([1940) 1 K. B. 56), in which the Court of apply held that acceptance of reimbursement renowned to be such under the Workmen's Compensation proceed, 1925, precludes an action for damages, are against the plaintiff, but, if this court is of opinion that those situations were wrongly determined, it has power to arrive to another deduction: glimpse Wynne-Finchv. Chaytor ([1903] 2 Ch. 475, 485), where the Court of apply not only refused to follow its own conclusion in Daglishv. Barton ([1900] 1 Q. B. 284), t. Perkins' case([1940) 1 K. B. 56) K. B. 180) o. v. Sneddon ( [1931] A. C. 575) t. There is no statutory or common regulation obligation on the court to follow its own decisions. Where courts have finished so, it was by virtue of made-to-order or "comity among judges": per ...