Odger's English Common Law

68 HOW TO ASCERTAIN THE LAW.
divided. 1 " A decision of this High. Court, in point of law,
is conclusive upon the House itself, as well as on all inferior
tribunals. I consider it the constitutional mode in which the
law is declared, and that after such a judgment has been pro-
nounced it can only be altered by an Act of the Legislature." 2
In short, the House of Lords is "a tribunal from which there
is no appeal and which is bound by its own decisions." 3
The decisions of the Court of Appeal are binding on all
Courts of inferior authority. They are also binding on the
Court of Appeal itself. Thus Lindley, L. J"., speaking of a
former case, said, "It is a decision of the Court of Appeal
which we should be bound to follow whether we thought it
right or not." 4 But the Court of Appeal has declined to
follow a decision of its own in which the Court was equally
divided ; for in such a case " there is no authority of the
Court as such, and those who follow must choose one of the
two adverse opinions." 5
The decisions of the High Court of Justice are binding on
all Courts of inferior rank in England. They will also be
followed by the High Court itself unless there be some very
strong reason to the contrary. "It is not proper for one
Court of co-ordinate jurisdiction to refuse to follow the decision
of another, merely because the Court thinks it erroneous.
There must be something more. There must either be current
of authority of superior, or at least co-ordinate, Courts against
it, or else it must be a recent decision inconsistent with the
plain terms of the statute." 6
The Court, however, is bound only by the decision in the
particular case—not by what are termed the obiter dicta of
any of the judges who formed the Court. Such dicta are
expressions of opinion on points immaterial to the decision
of the particular case. If it was unnecessary that such an
i Beamish v. Beamish (1859—1861), 9 H. L. Cas. 274, following R. V. Millis
(1843), 10 01. & F. 534.
2 Per Lord Campbell, L. C, in Bright v. Button (1852), 3 H. L. Cas. at pp. 391, 392.
8 Per Lord Halsbury, L. C, in Darley Main Colliery Co. v. Mitchell (1886), 11
App. Cas. at p. 134. Yet contrast the decision in 6. S,- C. Kreglinger v. New Patagonia,
$e., Co., Ltd., [1914] A. C. 25, with that in Bradley v. Carritt, ("19031 A. C. 253.
* Lavy v. L. C. C, [1895] 2 Q. B. at p. 581.
6 Per Brett, M. B., in The Vera Cruz (No. 2) (1884), 9 P. D. at p. 98.
6 Per Jessel, M. B., in In re Harper and G. E. Ry. Co. (1875), L. E. 20 Eq. at p. 43.