Court Of Appeal Law Report, July 28 Befor e the MASTER of the RoLLs, LORD JUsTIc? SCOTT, LORD JUSTICE MACKINNON, LORD JUSTICE LUXMOORE, LORD GODDARD, anid LORD JUSTICE DU PARCQ The full COUJRT dismissed this appeal by tie plaintiff from a decision of Mr. Neville Laski, K.C., sitting as Commissioner of Assize at Lancaster. Mr Gilbert Paull, K.C., and Mr. H. Barton appeared for the appellant; and Mr. G. J. Lynskey, K.C. (as he then was), and Mr. Matabele Davies for the respondents. On April 3, 1942, the plaintiff, who was then working for the clefendant company in their factory, sustained an injury. He brought this action at common law for damages, and the Commissioner- dismissed [hle claim on the ground thalt the plaintiff before beginning the action had already clainied and received com- pensation under the Workmen's Compensation Acts in respect Of an accident arising ouit of and in the couirse of his employment, anrd that he was therefore barred from recovering in this action in respect of the same accidcifl. The Commissioner held (C) Trhat thc ulaimniff did not mnake a claim for com- pensation as stich 12) that the p3aintiff could not be said to ttavc exercised the option given to him !)Y section 29 (l) of the Workmcn's Compensatioh Act, 1925. since he did not know of his right to ciect; and 13) that the plaintilt rcccived the nayments made to him as compcreation under the WGrkmen's Compensation Act and that the paymenLt were paid to him as such. On those findings of fact he considered that lie was bound by the decisions in Perkins v. Ilugh Stevenson and Sons, Limited (55 T1e Timtes L.R. 1000; [1940] 1 K.B. 56) and Sel- wood v. Townley Coal and Fireclay Company, Limited (56 The Times L.R. 6; [1940] 1 K.B. IS0) to hold that the third finding was fatal to the plaintiff's claim. The full Court of Appeal now held that the decision of the Commissioner was right and that the appeal therefore failed. On argument of the appeal before the MASTER of the ROLLS, LORD JUSTICE MAC- KINNON, altd LORD JUSTICE GODDARD. MR. PAULL admitted that, unless he could persuade the Court that the cases of Perkins (supra) and Selwood (.supra) were wrongly decided and need not be followed, the appeal mlust fail. As the qutestion. whether the Court was bound to follow its osvn previotis decisions was one of great importance, it was sutbse- quently argued* before a full Court and judgment reserved. TIhe MASTER of the ROLLS now read the judgment of the Court in which he reviewed at length the -jurisdiction of the Court and re- ferred to many authorities, and in conclusion said that the powers of the Court when sitting in full were no greater than the powers of a division sitting with only three members. The only cases in which the Court was not bound to follow a previous decision of its own were (I) wher-c there were decisions which were in- consistent with one another; (2) where a pre- 'vious decision which they were asked to follow had been overruled by the Hottse of Lords; and (3) where a decision which they were asked to follow had been obviously given per hicitrtia, without the attention of the Court's having been drawn to thc relevant authorities. In all other cases the Court of Appeal niust follow its own decisions. Leave to appeal to the House of Lords was granted. Solicitors.-Mr. W. 1H. Thompson; Messrs. Gregory, Rowcliffe and Co., for Messrs. John Taylor and Co., Manchester. COURT OF APPEAL WHETHER COURT BOUND TO FOLLOW I ITS OWN DECISIONS YOUNG v. BRISTOL AEROPLANE COMPANY. LIMITED