LEGAL PRECEDENT

London Street Tramways Co Ltd v London CC [1898] A.C. 375

London Street Tramways Co Ltd v London CC [1898] A.C. 375

The House of Lords is normally bound by its own previous decisions. Before 1966 the rule did not contain the word normally: the House of Lords was bound by its own previous decisions. The classic authority was London Tramways v. London County Council, but the rule was much older and was very clearly established well before 1898.

Fletcher v. Sondes* in 1827 was a particularly striking case. The precedent was Bishop of London v. Ffytche,' in which the House of Lords had decided by 19 votes to 18 to reverse the decisions of the Court of King's Bench and the Court of Common Pleas. As Lord Eldon said, 'the doctrine established in that case was, I must admit, certainly never thought right by some great judges. Your Lordships, however, are bound by that decision, unless there be some special circumstances to take this case out of the principle of that case' . An Act had then to be passed to protect those who had relied on the previous general practice which the House of Lords had declared to be illegal.

What happened between 1895 and 1898?

For the next 70 years, in spite of a handful of dicta to the contrary, there was overwhelming agreement among the judges that the House of Lords was bound by its own previous decisions. The evidence is important, but boring:

Bradford v. Pickles in 1895 was a good example. The law Lords were unanimous that they were bound by their own previous decisions.

Lord Halsbury: 'It would be absolutely hopeless to contend that this case is not governed by the authority of Chasemore v Richards (1859).'

Lord Watson: 'Upon that point there can be no doubt since

Chasemore v Richards was decided by this House in the year 1859.'

Lord Ashbourne: 'The law stated by this House in Chasemore v Richards cannot be questioned.'

Lord Macnaghten:'They cannot dispute the law laid down by this House in Chasemore v Richards.'

It is clear that in 1895 it was firmly established that the House of Lords was bound by its own previous decisions.

And yet, only three years later, in 1898, the rule was challenged head-on in London Tramways v. London County Council.12 It was challenged even though it was apparently firmly established; it was challenged even though Lord Halsbury, whose trenchant views on precedent were well known, was still Lord Chancellor. And the challenge failed, miserably and predictably.

Why was the rule challenged in London Tramways v. London County Councili What had happened between 1895 and 1898 which had given any indication that the House of Lords might, just possibly, change its mind? Lord Halsbury's judgment contains nothing that might explain the challenge. The appellants in their argument referred to Lord Advocate v.

Young. That was a Scottish case which contains some striking dicta on precedent. 'Now, even if that case were a decision on this question, we are not bound by one decision ...