This case shows the court considering whether it is proper to reverse its previous decisions. Lord Neuberger said,
21. Furthermore, it is important not to undermine the role of precedent in the common law. Even though it appears clear that both the reasoning and conclusion on the point at issue in Cookson v Knowles and Graham v Dodds were flawed, at least in the light of current practice, it is important that litigants and their advisers know, as surely as possible, what the law is. Particularly at a time when the cost of litigating can be very substantial, certainty and consistency are very precious commodities in the law. If it is too easy for lower courts to depart from the reasoning of more senior courts, then certainty of outcome and consistency of treatment will be diminished, which would be detrimental to the rule of law.
22. In our view, therefore, the issue is whether this is a case where this Court should apply the 1966 Practice Statement. In that connection, it is well established that this Court should not refuse to follow an earlier decision of this Court or the House of Lords merely because we would have decided it differently – see per Lord Bingham of Cornhill in Horton v Sadler  1 AC 307, para 29. More than that is required, not least because of the desirability of certainty in the law, as just discussed. However, as Lord Bingham said in the same passage, while “former decisions of the House are normally binding … too rigid adherence to precedent may lead to injustice in a particular case and unduly restrict the development of the law”.
23. This Court should be very circumspect before accepting an invitation to invoke the 1966 Practice Statement. However, we have no hesitation in concluding that we ought to do so in the present case. At least in the current legal climate, the application of the reasoning in the two House of Lords decisions on the point at issue is illogical and their application also results in unfair outcomes. Further, this has encouraged “courts … to distinguish them on inadequate grounds” (to quote Lord Hoffmann in A v Hoare  AC 844, para 25), which means that certainty and consistency are being undermined. Above all, the fact that there has been a material change in the relevant legal landscape since the earlier decisions, namely the decision in Wells v Wells and the adoption of the Ogden Tables, when taken with the other factors just mentioned, gives rise to an overwhelming case for changing the law.
24. As already noted, [the Ministry of Justice] very fairly acknowledged the strength of the appellant’s case for a change of approach. His only substantive answer to the contention that we should change the law was to point out that the system should be seen as a whole and that there are respects in which the current legislation requires that claimants be over-compensated. One example is section 3(3) of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976, which requires the court to ignore, not only the prospect but the actual remarriage of the claimant, but another is section 4, which requires that benefits which will or may accrue to any person as a result of the death shall be disregarded.
25. These are, of course, examples of over-compensation. They result from legislative choices and not (unlike the principles with we are concerned in this case) from judicial decisions. The Law Commission recommended that they be modified by legislation. But none of this is an answer to the basic question under consideration here. The present claimant should not be deprived of the compensation to which on ordinary principles he would be entitled because some other claimants, as a result of understandable legislative choices made by Parliament, receive more than they would receive on those ordinary principles. It would be wrong to preserve what is now known to be a flawed practice affecting most claimants in order to counteract those choices. Because those matters are dealt with in the 1976 Act itself, the solutions must lie with Parliament.
26. Finally, it was also suggested that, rather than this Court changing the law, we should leave it to the legislature to do so (as has happened in Scotland…).We would reject that suggestion. The current law on the issue we are being asked to resolve was made by judges, and, if it is shown to suffer from the defects identified above, then, unless there is a good reason to the contrary, it should be corrected or brought up to date by judges. That is, after all, the primary principle which lies behind the 1966 Practice Statement. Of course, there may be cases where any proposed change in the law is so complex, or carries with it potential injustices or wider implications that the matter is better left to the legislature, but this is not such a case. Furthermore, in England and Wales, questions relating to the assessment of damages are and always have been very much for the courts, rather than for the legislature (although there are exceptions, to which we have already alluded). In relation to the point at issue on this appeal, that was recognised by the Law Commission in paras 4.19-4.22 of their 1999 report, where it is said that “legislation is probably neither necessary nor appropriate” to change the law on this point, on the ground that there was “room for judicial manoeuvre without legislation”.
27. For these reasons, we would allow this appeal, and refuse to follow Cookson v Knowles and Graham v Dodds, on the basis that the correct date as at which to assess the multiplier when fixing damages for future loss in claims under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 should be the date of trial and not the date of death.
The 1966 Practice Direction appears as a separate entry under this tag.