A company which re-took possession of a car, which they had sold in exchange for a dishonoured cheque, had taken possession under a disposition. The meaning of disposition was dealt with differently by the three members of the Court of Appeal. Lord Denning said that the word ‘disposition’ was a very wide word and cited what Stirling J. had said in Carter v Carter [1896] 1 Ch 62 at 67, that a disposition extends ‘to all acts by which a new interest (legal or equitable) in the property is effectively created ‘. Phillimore LJ said that ‘to constitute a disposition the dealing with the goods must go beyond the mere transfer or delivery of them: there must be some disposal which involved transfer of property’. Megaw LJ said ‘ ‘Disposition’ must involve some transfer of an interest in property, in the technical sense of the word ‘property’ as contrasted with mere possession.’
The Court of Appeal and the High Court was not bound to follow decisions of the court which the Privy Council had held to be wrongly decided. Lord Denning MR said: ‘although decisions of the Privy Council are not binding on this court, nevertheless when the Privy Council disapprove of a previous decision of this court, or cast doubt on it, then we are at liberty to depart from the previous decision. I am glad to depart from those earlier cases and to follow the Privy Council.’
Judges:
Lord Denning MR, Phillimore LJ, Megaw LJ
Citations:
[1972] 1 QB 210, [1971] 3 ALL ER 708
Litigation Practice, Consumer
Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.277066
