Source: p 84 Bottom. Introduction to The Study of Law (2010, 7 ed) by Stephen M Waddams.
- Miliangos v. George Frank (Textiles) Ltd., [19761 A.C. 433 (H.L.). It can never be part of the ratio decidendi of a House of Lords decision that the Court of Appeal [hereafter EWCA] should have considered itself bound by earlier authority. If the substantive conclusion of the Court of Appeal is correct the House of Lords is bound to affirm it, however much it may disapprove the conduct of the Court of Appeal.
I reference solely the UKSC, as it superseded the Appellate Committee of the HoL.
Why's the above true? Wouldn't this constraint on the UKSC, cause the UKSC to acquiesce in judicial activism by EWCA (even if the EWCA's substantively correct)?