## Facts

- An unmarried couple cohabited “as husband and wife” in a local authority flat held on a joint tenancy.
- The male partner repeatedly committed severe domestic violence and made death threats.
- The woman fled the home with her young child to a refuge.
- She applied in county court under § 1 of the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976 for:
  - an injunction restraining violence/molestation;
  - an order excluding him from the jointly rented home; and
  - attachment of a power of arrest under § 2.
- A deputy circuit judge granted an injunction, an exclusion order, and a power of arrest.
- After an intervening Court of Appeal decision construed § 1 narrowly, the exclusion order was withdrawn; the woman appealed.
- A five-judge Court of Appeal, by majority, reinstated the exclusion order and purported to overrule prior Court of Appeal authorities limiting § 1.

## Issues

1. Whether the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) may depart from or overrule its own prior decisions outside the established exceptions to horizontal stare decisis.
2. Whether § 1 of the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976 authorizes injunctions excluding a violent partner from the home as a protective remedy, including where the parties are unmarried cohabitants.
3. Whether § 1 permits excluding a person with proprietary/occupational rights in the premises, including a joint tenant.
4. Whether parliamentary debates (Hansard) may be used as an aid to statutory interpretation of § 1.

## Decision

- The appeal was dismissed; the exclusion order in favor of the woman was upheld.
- The House of Lords held the Court of Appeal is bound by its own prior decisions in civil cases, subject only to the recognized exceptions; it was not entitled to overrule earlier decisions merely as “wrong.”
- By majority, the House construed § 1 as conferring protective jurisdiction to exclude a violent partner from the home, applying to both married persons and unmarried cohabitants.
- The House held § 1 can temporarily interfere with proprietary/occupational rights, including excluding a joint tenant from jointly held residential premises.
- The House rejected reliance on Hansard as an interpretive aid.

## Legal Principles

- The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) is bound by its own precedents, except where: (1) its decisions conflict; (2) a higher court has overruled the decision; or (3) the decision was given per incuriam.
- A remedial domestic-violence statute may be construed to provide effective protective orders, rather than narrowly confining relief to preexisting common-law or property rights.
- Under § 1 of the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976, a county court may grant an injunction excluding a violent person from the home regardless of marital status and notwithstanding the excluded person’s proprietary/occupational interest, including joint tenancy.
- Exclusion orders operate as a protective, typically time-limited suspension of occupancy rights, not a permanent deprivation of property rights.
- Parliamentary debates (Hansard) are generally inadmissible as an aid to statutory interpretation.

## Conclusion

The House of Lords reaffirmed strict horizontal stare decisis for the Court of Appeal, construed the 1976 domestic-violence provisions to protect both spouses and unmarried cohabitants, and upheld the power to exclude a violent joint tenant from the home as a temporary protective measure, while rejecting use of Hansard in interpretation.


Davis v. Johnson, [1979] A.C. 264 (H.L. 1978)