Practice Statement

Question 1

History

Answer 1

1898 overrule
London street tramways (1898) follow past decisions to maintain certainty in the law
=law never change
1966 practice statement m

Question 2

What is it

Answer 2

Allows UKSC overrule past decisions where it appears right to do so

Caution to use it in criminal law and contract

Question 3

Used in

Answer 3

Shivpuri (1986) overruling Anderton v Ryan (1985) where an obvious error had been made and needed correcting

Miliangos v George Frank textiles (1976) overruling Re United railways of Havana (1961) regarding awarding of damages in sterling

Question 4

UKSC

Answer 4

2009 transferred powers and Practice directions 3 and 4

Austin v Southwark (2009) made clear the continued use of the Practise statement

Question 5

Cases

Answer 5

Herrington v br board overruling addie v dumbreck

Murphy v Brentwood overruling Anns v Merton

Shivpuri overruling Anderton v Ryan

Pepper v hart overruling Davis v Johnson

Question 6

Criticisms of the practice statement

Answer 6

Used in Conway v rimmer (1968)
Herrington v BRB (1972) recognition of changing social and physical condition

Reluctance to use- knuller v DPP (1973)

Contract use- miliangos

First criminal 1986- shivpuri

1966-1980- 8/29 overrulings

Pepper v Hart (1993) overruled Davis v Johnson (1979) regarding the use of Hansard as an extrinsic aid should also be noted for its constitutional implications

C v DPP (1995) scared coz of judicial law making

Austin v South wark
(2010) scared again

Change due to economic climate, justice in individual cases, proper development of the law and the special need for certainty in criminal cases