Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent)

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
Judgment Date1966
Date1966
Year1966
CourtHouse of Lords

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
201 cases
4 firm's commentaries
  • 2021 Year in Review - Civil Fraud
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • 15 February 2022
    ...challenge, and, in the right circumstances, we may see aspects of the decision revisited once again.1 [2021] UKSC 24 2 [2007] UKHL 213 [1966] 1 WLR 1234 4 (2018) 134 LQR 695 [2008] UKHL 19 © 2022 Akin Gum p Strauss Hauer & Feld 72021 Year in Review - Civil Fra udLeeds City Council and Newha......
  • A Restrictive Interpretation?
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq UK
    • 30 June 2021
    ...test. This test, which emanates from the majority speeches in the House of Lords in Esso Petroleum Ltd v Harper's Garage Southport Ltd [1966] 1 WLR 1234, focusses on whether, in entering the covenant, the covenantor was giving up a pre-existing freedom. If, prior to giving the covenant, it ......
  • If It Ain't Broke Don't Fix It - Contract Interpretation After Chartbrook v Persimmon
    • Cayman Islands
    • Mondaq Cayman Islands
    • 16 July 2009
    ...for many years and several times affirmed by the House. There is power to do so under the Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) [1966] 1 WLR 1234. But that was intended, as Lord Reid said in R v. National Insurance Comrs, Ex p Hudson [1972] AC 944, 966, to be applied only in a small numbe......
  • Divergence On The Proximity Test For "Nervous Shock"' Will It Last?
    • Ireland
    • Mondaq Ireland
    • 25 January 2023
    ...[2013] EWCA Civ 194. 9. ibid para.93. 10. London Street Tramways v London County Council [1898] AC 375. 11. The Practice Statement [1966] 3 All ER 77. 12. Séamus Henchy, Precedent in the Irish Supreme Court, Modern Law Review, Volume 25 Issue 5, September 13. ibid 15. 14. [2015] IESC 31. 15......
29 books & journal articles
  • ENLARGED PANELS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SINGAPORE
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2019, December - January 2019
    • 1 December 2019
    ...134. 110 Pursuant to the Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) [1994] 2 SLR 689, similar to that issued by the House of Lords at [1966] 1 WLR 1234 and now applicable in the UK Supreme Court: Austin v Southwark London Borough Council [2011] 1 AC 355 at [24]–[25]; UK Supreme Court Practice ......
  • Cases referred to in 1983
    • Nigeria
    • DSC Publications Online Nigerian Supreme Court Cases. 1983 Preliminary Sections
    • 22 November 2022
    ...89 SCt. 1944 L.Ed 2nd 491. 495 Powell v. McCormack 395 U.S. 486. 318 CASES REFERRED TO IN 1983 Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) (1966) 1 W.L.R. 1234. 229 Prigg v. Pennsylvania 16 Pet. 539: US Sup. Ct. Reports 1060 L.E.D. 1st series 229 Queen ex-parte Ekpenoa v. Ozogula II 1962 All N.......
  • The legal and commercial frameworks
    • United Kingdom
    • Construction Law. Volume I - Third Edition
    • 13 April 2020
    ...by its own decisions, unless the court thinks it is right to depart from a previous decision: practice Statement ( Judicial precedent) [1966] 1 WLr 1234. See also Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd [2009] 1 aC 1101 at 1120–1121 [41], per Lord Hofmann. 69 Goodson v Richardson (1874) LR 9 C......
  • The Need to Kill Off Zombie Law
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 81-1, February 2017
    • 1 February 2017
    ...that decisions will take86. RvC[2004] EWCA Crim 292; [2004] 1 WLR 2098 [10]–[17].87. Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) [1966] 1 WLR 1234; (1986) 83 Cr App R 191 HL (and applicable to the SupremeCourt).88. Jogee [2016] UKSC 8 [85]. The case does not stand alone, for example RvHowe [198......
  • Get Started for Free