From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
|
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
- If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
- If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.
|
[edit] Precedents all Rejected?
I heard something to the effect that the English courts have effectively overruled every major decision that came from Lord Wilberforce. I am curious whether is this is true and if so whether it is commonly believed that this was done as a deliverate disavowal by the courts of everything Wilberforce did, or is simply a coincidence of the changes that have affected recent English common law. If true it would make an important part of the article. If it is not true, the fact that the rumour is circulated might be important in and of itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Joshua Bearden (talk • contribs) 05:19, 16 January 2007
- It isn't true. Although some of his judgments have been superceded (Anns v Merton, William & Glynis Bank v Boland) the majority of his key decisions are still accepted as good law (IRC v Ramsey, Quistclose, Securicor). By all means put a reference to the rumour on the page, if it was verifiable and sufficiently widely spread; but it seems a bit unlikely to me. --Legis (talk - contributions) 08:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
