Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd

Last updated June 25, 2024

Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd ([1944] KB 718 CA) was an English court case that established that the Court of Appeal is bound to follow its own decisions and those of courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction, except in the following cases:

the court is entitled and bound to decide which of two previous conflicting decisions of its own it will follow;
the court is bound to refuse to follow a decision of its own which cannot stand with a decision of the House of Lords or UK Supreme Court;
the court is not bound to follow a decision of its own if the decision was given per incuriam , e.g., where a statute or a rule having statutory effect which would have affected the decision was not brought to the attention of the earlier court.

The Human Rights Act 1998 created an exception to the Young rule. If a prior decision was contrary to Convention rights, the Court of Appeal is required to give effect to the Convention rights even if doing so involves disapplying their own past precedent or precedent from the House of Lords/Supreme Court.^[1] (See also: Culnane v Morris & Anor^[2]–a case concerning qualified privilege–overruling Plummer v Chairman;^[3]Miller v Bull^[4]–which concerned a time extension to comply with the formalities under the Election Petition Rules 1960–which overruled Ahmed v Kennedy.^[5] The latter case, though heard after the HRA 1998 came into effect, had failed to consider whether the Human Rights Act had been breached.)

During the UK's membership of the European Union, the European Communities Act 1972 required the Court of Appeal to follow decisions of the European Court of Justice.^[1] Following departure, this is now governed by the provisions of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

The Court of Appeal considered disapplying the Young doctrine in respect to decisions on interlocutory appeals, but has now rejected that principle.^[1]

The decision of the Court of Appeal in R v James and Karimi^[6] may also have future implications regarding precedent and Privy Council decisions; the Court of Appeal deciding to follow the Privy Council ruling in Attorney-General for Jersey v Holley [2005] as opposed to the contentious House of Lords decision in R v Smith (Morgan James) [2001] in a case concerning defendant characteristics and provocation under s.3 of the Homicide Act 1957.

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.

The Court of Appeal is the highest court within the Senior Courts of England and Wales, and second in the legal system of England and Wales only to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. The Court of Appeal was created in 1875, and today comprises 39 Lord Justices of Appeal and Lady Justices of Appeal.

Case law, also used interchangeably with common law, is a 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.

The Practice Statement [1966] 3 All ER 77 was a statement made in the House of Lords by Lord Gardiner LC on 26 July 1966 on behalf of himself and the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, that they would depart from precedent in the Lords in order to achieve justice.

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.

The Human Rights Act 1998 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom which received royal assent on 9 November 1998, and came into force on 2 October 2000. Its aim was to incorporate into UK law the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. The Act makes a remedy for breach of a Convention right available in UK courts, without the need to go to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg.

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.

Sir William Aldous was an English judge and a judge in the Gibraltar Court of Appeal.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constructive trust</span> Type of legal remedy

In trust law, a constructive trust is an equitable remedy imposed by a court to benefit a party that has been wrongfully deprived of its rights due to either a person obtaining or holding a legal property right which they should not possess due to unjust enrichment or interference, or due to a breach of fiduciary duty, which is intercausative with unjust enrichment and/or property interference. It is a type of implied trust.

The doctrine of legitimate expectation was first developed in English law as a ground of judicial review in administrative law to protect a procedural or substantive interest when a public authority rescinds from a representation made to a person. It is based on the principles of natural justice and fairness, and seeks to prevent authorities from abusing power.

Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd was a House of Lords case in English defamation law concerning qualified privilege for publication of defamatory statements in the public interest. The case provided the Reynolds defence, which could be raised where it was clear that the journalist had a duty to publish an allegation even if it turned out to be wrong.

Aerotel v Telco and Macrossan's Application is a judgment by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. The judgment was passed down on 27 October 2006 and relates to two different appeals from decisions of the High Court. The first case involved GB 2171877 granted to Aerotel Ltd and their infringement action against Telco Holdings Ltd and others. The second case concerned GB application 2388937 filed by Neal Macrossan but refused by the UK Patent Office.

A contractual term is "any provision forming part of a contract". Each term gives rise to a contractual obligation, the breach of which may give rise to litigation. Not all terms are stated expressly and some terms carry less legal gravity as they are peripheral to the objectives of the contract.

English contract law is the body of law that regulates legally binding agreements in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the Industrial Revolution, it shares a heritage with countries across the Commonwealth, from membership in the European Union, continuing membership in Unidroit, and to a lesser extent the United States. Any agreement that is enforceable in court is a contract. A contract is a voluntary obligation, contrasting to the duty to not violate others rights in tort or unjust enrichment. English law places a high value on ensuring people have truly consented to the deals that bind them in court, so long as they comply with statutory and human rights.

Illegality is one of the three broad headings of judicial review of administrative action in Singapore, the others being irrationality and procedural impropriety. To avoid acting illegally, an administrative body or public authority must correctly understand the law regulating its power to act and to make decisions, and give effect to it.

Sinclair Investments (UK) Ltd v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd[2011] EWCA Civ 347 is an English trusts law case, concerning constructive trusts. Sinclair was partially overruled in July 2014 by the UK Supreme Court in FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC.

Sinclair v Brougham [1914] AC 398 is an English trusts law case, concerning the right of depositors to recover sums which were deposited to a building society under contracts of deposit which were beyond the powers of the building society.

FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC[2014] UKSC 45 is a landmark decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court which holds that a bribe or secret commission accepted by an agent is held on trust for his principal. In so ruling, the Court partially overruled Sinclair Investments (UK) Ltd v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd in favour of The Attorney General for Hong Kong v Reid (UKPC), a ruling from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on appeal from New Zealand.

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

References

1 2 3 Ward, Richard; Wragg, Amanda; Walker, Ronald Jack (2011). Walker & Walker's English legal system (11 ed.). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 92–94. ISBN 978-0-19-958810-7.
↑ [2005] EWHC 2438, [2006] 2 All ER 149
↑ [1962] 1 WLR 1469
↑ [2009] EWHC 2640 QB, [2009] All ER (D) 281 (Oct)
↑ [2002] EWCA Civ 1793, [2002] All ER (D) 171
↑ [2006] EWCA Crim 14

Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[WalkerWalker-1] 1 2 3 Ward, Richard; Wragg, Amanda; Walker, Ronald Jack (2011). Walker & Walker's English legal system (11 ed.). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 92–94. ISBN 978-0-19-958810-7.

[2] [2005] EWHC 2438, [2006] 2 All ER 149

[3] [1962] 1 WLR 1469

[4] [2009] EWHC 2640 QB, [2009] All ER (D) 281 (Oct)

[5] [2002] EWCA Civ 1793, [2002] All ER (D) 171

[6] [2006] EWCA Crim 14

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]