Cases Involving Practice Statements

Herrington v BRB (1972):

• The first significant use of the Practice Statement
• In this case the issue was whether or not a duty of care is owed to a trespasser. In this case it was a child (and it was determined that a duty of care was owed)
• There was precedent from Addie v Dumbreck (1929) where it was decided that the landowner didn't owe a duty of care to a trespasser and would only be at fault if the harm that came to the trespasser was intentional or a result of recklessness
• The Supreme Court used the Practice Statement to overrule this precedent and replace it with the result from Herrington v BRB

Jones v Secretary of State for Social Services (1972):

• This case illustrated the reluctance in the House of Lords to use the Practice Statement
• The case involved interpreting the National Insurance Act 1946
• Four of the seven judges regarded the earlier decision in Re Dowling (1967) as being wrong
• Despite this, the Lords refused to overrule the earlier case , preferring to keep to the idea that certainty was the most important feature of precedent

Miliangos:

• It was decided that compensation should be awarded to the claimant in a currency of their choosing

Pepper v Hart:

• The previous ban on the use of Hansard in statutory interpretation was overruled

R v Shivpuri (1986):

• Shivpuri was persuaded to act as a drugs courier. He thought that he was attempting to smuggle heroin, but it turned out to be snuff, which is legal. The defendant claimed that he couldn't be found guilty because the substance was not a drug
• Ovrruled Anderton v Ryan - where attempting the impossible was seen to not be a criminal offence (in Anderton, a woman sold TVs that she thought were stolen but turned out to be wrong)
• The case held and Shivpuri was prosecuted