The House considered the application of a case precedent where they had been uunable to extract a binding ratio decidendi.
Held: A ratio decidendi cannot be created by aggregating views of minority judges and views of majority judges to secure a numerical majority on a particular issue. Viscount Dunedin (dissenting) said as to the ratio of the case referred to: ‘Now, when any tribunal is bound by the judgment of another Court, either superior or co-ordinate, it is, of course, bound by the judgment itself. And if from the opinions delivered it is clear – as is the case in most instances – what the ratio decidendi was which led to the judgment, then that ratio decidendi is also binding. But it is not clear, then I do not think it is part of the tribunal’s duty to spell out with great difficulty a ratio decidendi in order to be bound by it. That is what the Court of Appeal has done here. With great hesitation they have added the opinion of Lord Hatherley to that of Lord Cairns and then, with still greater difficulty, that of Lord Blackburn, and so have secured what they think was a majority in favour of Lord Cairns’s very clear view. I do not think that the respect which they hold and have expressed for the judgments of your Lordships’ House compelled them to go through this difficult and most unsatisfactory performance.’ and ‘[Y]ou cannot extract from the judgments in Wear v Adamson such a ratio decidendi as is binding. That, however, is far from wiping Wear v Adamson off the slate. It remains for two purposes. First, for the judgment itself and, second, for the opinions of the noble Lords, which are entitled to the greatest respect. Now, the judgment is binding. What, therefore, I think is our duty on this occasion is to consider the statute for ourselves in the light of the opinions, diverging as they are, and to give an interpretation; but that interpretation must necessarily be one which would not, if it applied to the facts of Wear v Adamson, lead to a different result.’
Judges:
Viscount Haldane, Viscount Dunedin
Citations:
[1928] AC 57, 97 LJP8, 138 LT 403
Statutes:
Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 74
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Examined – River Wear Commissioners v Adamson HL 1877
It was not necessary for there to be an ambiguity in a statutory provision for a court to be allowed to look at the surrounding circumstances.
As to the Golden Rule of interpretation: ‘It is to be borne in mind that the office of the judge is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Transport, Constitutional
Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.242136