Mustafa Ali

1. London Street Tramways

2. Young v Bristol Aeroplane
3. Schorsch Meier v Herrin
4. Austin v Southwark London Borough Council [2010]
5. Knuller v DPP
6. R v Shivpuri
7. British Railways v Herrington
8. Miliangos v George Frank
9. DN v SOS

Q1.
One of the most leading cases where the Practice Statement 1966 was used in criminal cases,
was R v Shivpuri. The case facts of Shivpuri were similar to those of Ryan v Anderton, where
a video recorder was dishonestly handled assumed to be stolen, but soon turned out to be that
the recorder wasn’t a stolen good, hence the defendant wasn’t convicted. In the case of
Shivpuri, however, the Practice Statement was used because Lord Bridge stated that the
decision in Ryan was wrong, and that the law needs to provide certainty.
Another case was British Railways Board v Herrington which was where it was used in a
Civil Case. This case had similar facts to the case of Addie v Dumbreck however, its decision
was over 50 years old, and the House of Lords stated the decision wasn’t as Up-To-Date to
the social changes in society, hence the Practice Statement 1966 was used.

Q2. Shaw v DPP.

The reason why it wasn’t used was because Lord Reid dissented in the case of Shaw, that it
would be wrong to use to practice statement to upset the decision.

Q3. The court of appeal can refuse to follow their decisions under certain circumstances such
as distinguishing the case, if the facts of the current case are significantly from the previous
precedent and the other is changed in legal principles. If there has been a sufficient change in
legal principle or societal norms, the court may decide that the old precedent is not valid
anymore

Q5. The case of Miliangos v George Frank involved Miliangos, the claimant, who was a
Swiss textile factory owner, and made a contract to George Frank, to sell yarn in return for
currency in Swiss Francs. With time, George stopped paying to Miliangos, which caused loss
to Miliangos. During this time, the value of pound decreased immensely. Miliangos took the
case to court, where he claimed to be paid in Swiss Francs instead of Pounds. However, due
to the rules of vertical precedent, the Court of Appeal was bound to follow decisions of the
House of Lords. The HoL in the case of Schorsch Mieir v Herrin held that the courts would
only give judgements in Pound Sterling. However, a conflicting case, Havanah, was one
where the Court of Appeal allowed the change of currency. This led to immense confusion.
However, at the end of the case, Lord cross stated that the Court of Appeal is still bound to
follow the HoL decision in respect to the rules of precedent, however they did state that the
decision of Court of Appeals does seem to be right and correct. This was so that such
confusing cases could be avoided always in future.