Morelle Ltd v Wakeling [1955] EWCA Civ 1

A Dublin-incorporated company claimed leasehold property in London. The defendant tenants argued the company's title was forfeited under the Mortmain Acts as it was a foreign corporation without licence to hold land. The Court of Appeal held the earlier Morelle case was binding and not decided per incuriam, establishing strict limits on when courts may depart from precedent.

Facts

Morelle Limited, a company incorporated in Dublin under the laws of Eire, claimed to be the proprietor of a leasehold interest in premises at 158 Coldharbour Lane, Brixton, London. The company brought an action for alleged arrears of rent against tenants occupying part of the premises. The property was registered land, and the plaintiff company had been entered on the Land Register as proprietor with a possessory title following a transfer from the previous registered proprietor, Desmond Dixon, in January 1953.

The Defence

The defendant tenants challenged the plaintiff company’s title to sue, arguing that since the company was a foreign corporation with no business or address in England, and had neither obtained a licence in mortmain nor availed itself of section 408 of the Companies Act 1948, the leasehold interest had been forfeited to the Crown under the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act 1888.

Issues

The main issues before the Court were:

• Whether the earlier decision in Morelle Ltd v Waterworth [1955] 1 QB 1 was binding on this Court, or whether it had been decided per incuriam
• Whether the fact that the land was registered land distinguished this case from the earlier Morelle decision
• Whether registration of the plaintiff company as proprietor gave it good title notwithstanding the Mortmain Acts

Judgment

The Doctrine of Per Incuriam

The Court extensively considered when it could depart from its own previous decisions. The Master of the Rolls, delivering the judgment of the Court, quoted from Young v Bristol Aeroplane Company Limited [1944] 1 KB 718:

“We do not think that it would be right to say that there may not be other cases of decisions given per incuriam in which this court might properly consider itself entitled not to follow an earlier decision of its own. Such cases would obviously be of the rarest occurrence and must be dealt with in accordance with their special facts.”

The Court formulated the principle:

“As a general rule the only cases in which decisions should be held to have been given per incuriam are those of decisions given in ignorance or forgetfulness of some inconsistent statutory provision or of some authority binding on the Court concerned: so that in such cases some part of the decision or some step in the reasoning on which it is based is found, on that account, to be demonstrably wrong.”

Application to the First Morelle Case

Despite arguments from the Attorney-General that the earlier decision was erroneous, the Court held it could not be treated as per incuriam. The Court stated:

“It has been impossible, in our judgment, to fasten upon anything in the Judgments in the first Morelle case or upon any step in the reasoning on which those Judgments were based, and to say of it: ‘Here was a manifest slip or error’.”

The Registered Land Point

The Court rejected the argument that registration gave the plaintiff company good title. Section 80 of the Land Registration Act 1925 provides:

“Subject to the express provisions of this Act relating to the effect of first registration of title and the effect of registration of a disposition for valuable consideration, nothing in this Act affects any right of His Majesty to any bona vacantia or forfeiture.”

The Court held that the provisions protecting transferees from defects in the transferor’s title did not protect a transferee from defects arising from its own incapacity to hold land in mortmain.

Implications

This case is a landmark authority on the doctrine of stare decisis and the circumstances in which the Court of Appeal may depart from its own previous decisions. It significantly narrowed the per incuriam exception, emphasising that acceptance of broader grounds for departure would “open the way to numerous and costly attempts to re-open questions now held to be authoritatively decided” and would be “inconsistent with the maintenance of the principle of stare decisis in our Courts.” The case also clarified that a full Court of five judges has no greater authority than a normal division of three judges to reverse earlier decisions.

Verdict: Appeal dismissed. The Court held that the decision in the first Morelle case was binding and had not been decided per incuriam. The registration of the plaintiff company as proprietor of registered land did not give it good title free from the forfeiture under the Mortmain Acts. The plaintiff company’s leasehold interest had been automatically forfeited to the Crown upon registration of the transfer.

Source: Morelle Ltd v Wakeling [1955] EWCA Civ 1