THE SUPREME COURT/HOL-Practise Statement Cases Flashcards
What/when was the first case use of the practise statement?
1968 Conway V Rimmer
Describe the case of Conway V Rimmer 1968 (3) -what did it involve? -what was the case based on? -why was it changed
- Involved only a technical point in discovery of documents
- Based on a misapprehension of the law
- Lower courts expressed their regrets of the precedent made by Duncan V Cammell Laird 1942
Which case did Conway V Rimmer 1968 rule over?
Duncan V Cammell Laird 1942
When/what was the second use of the practise statement? aka the first major use
Herrington V British Railways Board 1972
Describe the second case of the practise statement, (the first major use), Herrington V BRB 1972? (3) -what happened -what changes -why
- Child injured on a railway line as company didn’t maintain the fencing
- Lords felt that social and physical conditions had changed since 1929
- Railways Board owed a duty of care to child trespasser
Which case did Herrington V BRB 1972 overrule? What did this case say?
Addie V Dumbreck (1929)
Said that the company only owed a duty of care when injury to a child was caused deliberately or recklessly
What was the significance of the 3rd thought of using the Practise Statement , in which case?
- Refused to overrule earlier case
- Jones V Secretary of State for Social Services 1972
Which case did Jones V secretary of State for Social Services 1972 consider when deciding whether to use the practise statement?
Re Dowling 1967
Describe the case Jones V Secretary of State for Social Services 1972
- what act did it regard ?
- how many judges ?
- why did it not overrule?
- regarding National Insurance Act 1946
- 4 out of 7 judges regarded the decision in Re Dowling wrong
- Refused to overrule due to importance of certainty in law
What/when was the 4th case involving the practise statement?
Knuller V DPP 1974
Which case was considered in this decision of Knuller V DPP 1974?
Shaw V DPP 1962
What did the court decide in Knuller V DPP 1974?
To follow the case of Shaw V DPP 1962
Describe the case of Knuller V DPP 1974
- what was the defendant convicted of
- why did Judges follow Shaw V DPP 1962
- Convicted of ‘conspiracy to corrupt public morals’
- Judges believe the decision in Shaw V DPP was wrong but followed it anyway in the interest of certainty in law
What did Lord Reid say regarding the case of Knuller V DPP 1974 and Shaw V DPP 1962?
Lord Reid
“Do not reverse where house believes decisions were wrong, but reverse only when there is a good reason for doing so in the interests in certainty”
When/What was the 3rd use of the practise statement, also the 5th case in which it was considered?
Milliangoes V George Frank 1976