London Street Tramways Co Ltd v London CC

Factual and Procedural Background

The opinion arises from an appeal before the House of Lords in which Attorney Reid, appearing with junior counsel, candidly informed the court that an existing decision of the House was directly on point. The disclosure led the House to consider whether it was competent for counsel to seek a rehearing of a legal question that had already been authoritatively decided. The judgment delivered by Judge Halsbury L.C., with the concurrence of Judge Macnaghten, Judge Morris and Judge James of Hereford, addresses only that procedural and doctrinal issue rather than the underlying facts of the litigants’ dispute.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the House of Lords may reopen and re-argue a point of law that has already been decided by a prior decision of the House.

Arguments of the Parties

Counsel Seeking Re-argument

• Contended, relying on statements by Judge St. Leonards, that the House retained authority to reconsider its own precedent in an “extraordinary” or “unusual” case.
• Suggested that if the House had overlooked the existence—or repeal—of an Act of Parliament in a prior judgment, this would justify departure from that judgment.

Opposing Counsel

• Maintained that the doctrine of stare decisis binds the House to its earlier decisions unless overturned by statute.
• Emphasised the public interest in finality of litigation (“finis litium”) and the practical chaos that would ensue if every litigant could invite the final court of appeal to revisit settled law.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Judge Halsbury L.C. stated that a decision of the House of Lords on a point of law is conclusive and cannot be treated as a res integra. He reviewed historical practice, noting that for centuries there had been no contrary authority. The court distinguished mistakes of fact (e.g., overlooking the repeal of a statute) from disagreements about legal reasoning; the former might warrant correction in a later case, but the latter could not justify re-argument. The judgment stressed the “disastrous inconvenience” that would arise if every litigant could re-open settled points, undermining the finality essential to the legal system. Accordingly, only Parliament, by legislation, could overturn an erroneous decision of the House.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED WITH COSTS

The House refused to permit re-argument of the legal issue, reaffirming that its own prior decisions are binding upon it until altered by Act of Parliament. The immediate consequence is that the parties are bound by the earlier precedent; more broadly, the judgment entrenches the doctrine of stare decisis at the highest appellate level, leaving any change in the law to legislative intervention rather than judicial reconsideration.