Young v Bristol Aeroplane [1944]

Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd [1944] KB 718 CA was an English court case that established the principle that the Court of Appeal is bound to follow its own decisions and those of courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction, except in specific circumstances:
  1. The court is entitled and bound to decide which of two previous conflicting decisions of its own it will follow. This ensures that when inconsistencies arise, the court can choose the more appropriate precedent.
  2. The court is bound to refuse to follow a decision of its own which cannot stand with a decision of the House of Lords (now the UK Supreme Court). This maintains the hierarchical structure of the court system, ensuring that higher court rulings take precedence.
  3. The court is not bound to follow a decision of its own if the decision was given per incuriam, meaning through lack of care, such as where a relevant statute or rule was not considered by the earlier court.

The Human Rights Act 1998 introduced 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 this involves disapplying their own past precedent or precedent from the House of Lords/Supreme Court. This was highlighted in cases such as Culnane v Morris & Anor and Miller v Bull, which involved issues of qualified privilege and time extensions under the Election Petition Rules 1960, respectively.

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. Following the UK's departure from the EU, this is now governed by the provisions of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which adjusts the relevance of EU case law in the UK legal system.

The Court of Appeal considered disapplying the Young doctrine in respect to decisions on interlocutory appeals but ultimately rejected this principle. Additionally, the decision in R v James and Karimi highlighted a scenario where the Court of Appeal chose to follow a Privy Council ruling over a contentious House of Lords decision. In this case, the court preferred the Privy Council's decision in Attorney-General for Jersey v Holley [2005] over the House of Lords decision in R v Smith (Morgan James) [2001] concerning defendant characteristics and provocation under Section 3 of the Homicide Act 1957.

These principles and exceptions underline the flexibility and complexity within the doctrine of precedent, illustrating the careful balance between adhering to established rulings and adapting to new legal standards and human rights considerations.
Back to blog

UOL Case Bank

Upon joining, you become a valuable UOL student and gain instant access to over 2,100 case summaries. UOL Case Bank is constantly expanding. Speed up your revision with us now.

Subscribe Now

Where are our students from?

Yale University
Council of Europe
Baker Mckenzie 
University of Chicago
Columbia University
New York University
University of Michigan 
INSEAD
University College London (UCL)
London School of Economics (LSE)
King’s College London (KCL)
University of London
University of Manchester
University of Zurich
University of York
Brandeis University
University of Exeter
University of Sheffield
Boston University
University of Washington
University of Leeds
University of Law
Royal Holloway, University of London 
Birkbeck, University of London
SOAS, University of London
University of Kent
University of Hull
Queen’s University Belfast
Toronto Metropolitan University
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
University of Buckingham

  • Criminal Practice

    Diagrams and Charts

    Our carefully designed diagrams and charts will guide you through complex legal issues.

  • Criminal Law

    Clear and Succinct Definitions

    Key concepts are concisely defined to help you understand legal topics quickly.

  • Property Law

    Statutory Provisions

    Statutory provisions are provided side by side with legal concepts to help you swiftly locate the relevant legislation.

  • Public Law

    Case Summaries

    We have summarised important cases for you so that you don't need to read long and boring cases.

  • Evidence

    Rules and Exceptions

    Rules and exceptions are clearly listed so that you know when a rule applies and when it doesn't.

  • Company Law

    Terminology

    Legal terms and key concepts are explained at the beginning of each chapter to help you learn efficiently.

  • Case Law

    Case law is provided side by side with legal concepts so that you know how legal principles and precedents were established.

  • Law Exam Guide

    Law Essay Guide

    You will learn essential law exam skills and essay writing techniques that are not taught in class.

  • Law Exam Guide

    Problem Question Guide

    We will show you how to answer problem questions step by step to achieve first-class results.

  • Conflict of Laws

    Structured Explanations

    Complex legal concepts are broken down into concise and digestible bullet point explanations.

  • Legal System and Method

    Legal Research

    You will learn legal research techniques with our study guide and become a proficient legal researcher.

  • Jurisprudence and Legal Theory

    Exam-focused

    All essential concepts, principles, and case law are included so that you can answer exam questions quickly.