Per incuriam

Last updated

Per incuriam, literally translated as "through lack of care" is a device within the common law system of judicial precedent. A finding of per incuriam means that a previous court judgment has failed to pay attention to relevant statutory provision or precedents.

Contents

The significance of a judgment having been decided per incuriam is that it need not be followed by a lower court. Ordinarily, the rationes of a judgment is binding upon lower courts in similar cases. However, a lower court is free to depart from a decision of a superior court if the earlier judgment was decided per incuriam.

Examples of per incuriam

Examples of per incuriam are uncommon partly because the device is perceived by upper courts as a type of lèse-majesté , and respectful lower courts prefer to distinguish such precedent cases if possible.

The Court of Appeal in Morelle Ltd v Wakeling [1955] 2 QB 379 stated that as a general rule, the only cases in which decisions should be held to have been given per incuriam are those of decisions given in ignorance or forgetfulness of some inconsistent statutory provision or of some authority binding on the court concerned and so in such cases some part of the decision or some step in reasoning on which it is based is found, on that account, to be demonstrably wrong.

In R v Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal ex parte Shaw [1951] 1 All ER 268, a divisional court of the King's Bench division declined to follow a Court of Appeal decision on the ground that the decision had been reached per incuriam for failure to cite a relevant House of Lords decision.

Some academic critics have suggested that Re Polemis [1] was decided per incuriam as it did not rely upon the earlier decision in Hadley v Baxendale 1854.

Similarly, others [2] have suggested that Foakes v Beer [3] was decided per incuriam as it failed to note the recent House of Lords decision in Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co 1877. [4]

Related Research Articles

Precedent is a principle or rule established in a legal case that becomes authoritative to a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar legal issues or facts. The legal doctrine stating that courts should follow precedent is called stare decisis.

Case law, also used interchangeably with common law, is law that is based on precedents, that is the judicial decisions from previous cases, rather than law based on constitutions, statutes, or regulations. Case law uses the detailed facts of a legal case that have been resolved by courts or similar tribunals. These past decisions are called "case law", or precedent. Stare decisis—a Latin phrase meaning "let the decision stand"—is the principle by which judges are bound to such past decisions, drawing on established judicial authority to formulate their positions.

Landmark court decisions, in present-day common law legal systems, establish precedents that determine a significant new legal principle or concept, or otherwise substantially affect the interpretation of existing law. "Leading case" is commonly used in the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth jurisdictions instead of "landmark case", as used in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nathaniel Lindley, Baron Lindley</span> English judge (1828–1921)

Nathaniel Lindley, Baron Lindley, was an English judge.

<i>Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd</i> Legal doctrines of promissory estoppel

Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130 is a famous English contract law decision in the High Court. It reaffirmed and extended the doctrine of promissory estoppel in contract law in England and Wales. However, the most significant part of the judgment is obiter dicta as it relates to hypothetical facts; that is, the landlord did not seek repayment of the full wartime rent.

Obiter dictum is a Latin phrase meaning "other things said", that is, a remark in a legal opinion that is "said in passing" by any judge or arbitrator. It is a concept derived from English common law, whereby a judgment comprises only two elements: ratio decidendi and obiter dicta. For the purposes of judicial precedent, ratio decidendi is binding, whereas obiter dicta are persuasive only.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">William Brett, 1st Viscount Esher</span>

William Baliol Brett, 1st Viscount Esher, PC, known as Sir William Brett between 1868 and 1883, was a British lawyer, judge, and Conservative politician. He was briefly Solicitor-General under Benjamin Disraeli and then served as a justice of the Court of Common Pleas between 1868 and 1876, as a Lord Justice of Appeal between 1876 and 1883 and as Master of the Rolls. He was raised to the peerage as Baron Esher in 1885 and further honoured when he was made Viscount Esher on his retirement in 1897.

Consideration is an English common law concept within the law of contract, and is a necessity for simple contracts. The concept of consideration has been adopted by other common law jurisdictions, including the US.

<i>Foakes v Beer</i>

Foakes v Beer[1884] UKHL 1 is an English contract law case, which applied the controversial pre-existing duty rule in the context of part payments of debts. It is a leading case from the House of Lords on the legal concept of consideration. It established the rule that prevents parties from discharging an obligation by part performance, affirming Pinnel's Case (1602) 5 Co Rep 117a. In that case it was said that "payment of a lesser sum on the day [i.e., on or after the due date of a money debt] cannot be any satisfaction of the whole."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Estoppel in English law</span>

Estoppel in English law is a doctrine that may be used in certain situations to prevent a person from relying upon certain rights, or upon a set of facts which is different from an earlier set of facts.

Pinnel's Case [1602] 5 Co. Rep. 117a, also known as Penny v Cole, is an important case in English contract law, on the doctrine of part performance. In it, Sir Edward Coke opined that a part payment of a debt could not extinguish the obligation to pay the whole.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Colin Blackburn, Baron Blackburn</span> Scottish judge (1813–1896)

Colin Blackburn, Baron Blackburn, was a British lawyer and judge. The son of a Scottish clergyman, he was educated in Scotland and England, before joining the English bar. He was little known to the legal world before he was elevated from the junior bar to a puisne judgeship in the Court of Queen's Bench by Lord Campbell in 1859, a position he held until 1876, when he was appointed to the Court of Appeal. In October of that year, he was the first person to be appointed as a law lord under the provisions of the newly enacted Appellate Jurisdiction Act. He retired in 1886 and died ten years later. Blackburn was considered the highest authority on common law and his judgments continue to be cited today.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Edward Fry</span> British judge (1827–1918)

Sir Edward Fry, was an English Lord Justice of Appeal (1883–1892) and an arbitrator on the Permanent Court of Arbitration.

Landmark Cases in the Law of Contract (2008) is a book by Charles Mitchell and Paul Mitchell, which outlines the key cases in English contract law.

Collier v P & MJ Wright (Holdings) Ltd[2007] EWCA Civ 1329 is an English contract law case, concerning the doctrine of consideration and promissory estoppel in relation to "alteration promises".

In re Selectmove Ltd[1993] EWCA Civ 8 is an English contract law case, concerning the doctrine of consideration, and part payments of debt.

<i>HBF Dalgety Ltd v Morton</i>

HBF Dalgety Ltd v Morton [1987] 1 NZLR 411 is a leading case in New Zealand regarding accord and satisfaction; it reinforces the English case of Foakes v Beer in New Zealand.

<i>Hirachand Punumchand v Temple</i>

Hirachand Punamchand v Temple [1911] 2 KB 330 is often cited as one of the exceptions to the accord and satisfaction rule laid out in Foakes v Beer. In that case, it is held that an agreement to accept part payment of a debt cannot validly discharge the entire debt. In Hirachand Punamchand v Temple, part payment of a debt is held to be valid because it is supplied by a third party and not the debtor.

In the English system of common law, judges have devised a number of mechanisms to allow them to cope with precedent decisions.

References

  1. Re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd (1921) 3 KB 560
  2. as in Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd
  3. Foakes v Beer [1884] UKHL 1 , 9 App Cas 605, (1883-84) LR 9 App Cas 605, (1884) 9 App Cas 605(16 May 1884)
  4. Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co (1876-77) LR 2 App Cas 439, 2 App Cas 439, [1877] UKHL

See also