Anufrijeva v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

The Court of Appeal is bound by its own previous decisions unless a recognised exception applies. It may depart where the earlier decision was given per incuriam, through ignorance or forgetfulness of binding authority or statute, or in the rarest cases for a manifest slip or error. Even where an earlier decision appears seriously wrong, the usual course is to follow it and leave correction to the House of Lords. A court may grant leave where the issue is important, affects a substantial group, and is unlikely to receive effective appellate consideration in another case.

The claimant, an asylum seeker, appealed against the decision of Sir Christopher Bellamy concerning the date on which her entitlement to income support ended under regulation 70(3A) of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987. The Secretary of State had recorded her asylum claim as determined before the refusal and reasons were communicated to her. The judge considered himself bound by R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Salem [1999] Q.B.805. The appeal raised whether this Court was bound by Salem and, if so, whether leave to appeal to the House of Lords should nevertheless be granted.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The facts were indistinguishable from R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Salem [1999] Q.B.805. The majority in Salem had held that an asylum claim could be recorded as determined before the claimant was informed of the decision or refused leave to enter. That conclusion therefore governed the present case.

2. The Court of Appeal has the doctrine of stare decisis. It may depart from its own decision where the earlier court overlooked a binding decision or statutory provision and would inevitably have reached the contrary conclusion had it considered them. A further exceptional category exists for a manifest slip or error, but such cases are of the rarest occurrence. The arguments advanced against Salem did not establish either exception.

3. Even if Salem were manifestly wrong, the preferable course would be to follow it and allow the House of Lords to decide whether to overrule it. This followed the guidance in Morelle Ltd v Wakeling [1955] 2 Q.B.379 and Rickards v Rickards [1990] Fam 194.

4. The Court expressed substantial doubt about recording a refusal before the claimant knew of the decision and its reasons, having regard to the apparent purpose of the regulations and the prolonged administrative delay. Those concerns did not justify departing from Salem, but they supported granting leave to appeal.

5. Leave to appeal to the House of Lords was granted. Unlike the earlier Salem appeal, the present issue affected about 9,000 similarly placed claimants and was not academic in the same way. Costs were to be assessed under the Community Legal Service (Costs Regulations 2000).

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal from Sir Christopher Bellamy was dismissed, and leave to appeal to the House of Lords was granted.
• Lower court: Sir Christopher Bellamy held that he was bound by R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Salem [1999] Q.B.805 and rejected the claimant’s challenge.