104:
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.
60:
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
192:
299:
129:
121:
292:
93:
323:
318:
285:
158:
100:
2 QB 379 stated that as a general rule, the only cases in which decisions should be held to have been given
116:
division declined to follow a Court of Appeal decision on the ground that the decision had been reached
113:
8:
20:
139:
36:
273:
47:
judgment has failed to pay attention to relevant statutory provision or precedents.
81:
213:, 9 App Cas 605, (1883-84) LR 9 App Cas 605, (1884) 9 App Cas 605 (16 May 1884)
210:
79:
are uncommon partly because the device is perceived by upper courts as a type of
56:
269:
86:
312:
241:
205:
148:
16:
Finding that a previous judgement failed to take account of law or precedent
31:, literally translated as "through lack of care" is a device within the
32:
54:
is that it need not be followed by a lower court. Ordinarily, the
265:
110:
44:
156:
as it failed to note the recent House of Lords decision in
261:
193:
Central London
Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd
50:The significance of a judgment having been decided
310:
225:(1876-77) LR 2 App Cas 439, 2 App Cas 439, UKHL
137:as it did not rely upon the earlier decision in
293:
179:Re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd
67:
300:
286:
127:Some academic critics have suggested that
85:, and respectful lower courts prefer to
112:1 All ER 268, a divisional court of the
311:
146:Similarly, others have suggested that
248:
13:
89:such precedent cases if possible.
14:
335:
223:Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co
159:Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co
120:for failure to cite a relevant
216:
198:
184:
172:
1:
165:
272:. You can help Knowledge by
7:
234:
10:
340:
247:
18:
324:Latin legal phrase stubs
19:Not to be confused with
319:Latin legal terminology
98:Morelle Ltd v Wakeling
43:means that a previous
211:[1884] UKHL 1
21:Per curiam decision
140:Hadley v Baxendale
37:judicial precedent
281:
280:
331:
302:
295:
288:
264:article about a
256:
249:
226:
220:
214:
202:
196:
188:
182:
176:
339:
338:
334:
333:
332:
330:
329:
328:
309:
308:
307:
306:
252:
237:
230:
229:
221:
217:
203:
199:
189:
185:
181:(1921) 3 KB 560
177:
173:
168:
94:Court of Appeal
73:
39:. A finding of
24:
17:
12:
11:
5:
337:
327:
326:
321:
305:
304:
297:
290:
282:
279:
278:
257:
246:
245:
236:
233:
228:
227:
215:
197:
183:
170:
169:
167:
164:
122:House of Lords
72:
66:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
336:
325:
322:
320:
317:
316:
314:
303:
298:
296:
291:
289:
284:
283:
277:
275:
271:
267:
263:
258:
255:
251:
250:
244:
243:
242:Stare decisis
239:
238:
232:
224:
219:
212:
208:
207:
206:Foakes v Beer
201:
195:
194:
187:
180:
175:
171:
163:
161:
160:
155:
151:
150:
149:Foakes v Beer
144:
142:
141:
136:
132:
131:
125:
123:
119:
115:
111:
106:
103:
99:
95:
90:
88:
84:
83:
78:
71:
65:
63:
59:
58:
53:
48:
46:
42:
38:
34:
30:
29:
22:
274:expanding it
268:phrase is a
259:
253:
240:
231:
222:
218:
204:
200:
191:
186:
178:
174:
157:
154:per incuriam
153:
152:was decided
147:
145:
138:
135:per incuriam
134:
133:was decided
128:
126:
118:per incuriam
117:
114:King's Bench
109:
107:
102:per incuriam
101:
97:
91:
82:lèse-majesté
80:
77:per incuriam
76:
75:Examples of
74:
70:per incuriam
69:
68:Examples of
62:per incuriam
61:
55:
52:per incuriam
51:
49:
41:per incuriam
40:
28:Per incuriam
27:
26:
25:
87:distinguish
313:Categories
166:References
130:Re Polemis
124:decision.
35:system of
33:common law
235:See also
57:rationes
190:as in
162:1877.
143:1854.
266:Latin
262:legal
260:This
209:
45:court
270:stub
92:The
254:IUS
108:In
96:in
315::
64:.
301:e
294:t
287:v
276:.
23:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.