Final appellate decisions are highly persuasive, but may be reconsidered where a material factual mistake is alleged.

Final appellate decisions are entitled to great weight, but no inflexible rule requires a judicial committee to follow an earlier ruling blindly in every circumstance. Where a material mistake of fact is alleged in the earlier decision, the tribunal may examine whether departure is justified, and the reference is not to be treated as an automatic re-hearing. The Board rejected the argument that it was bound without scrutiny to adhere to the prior ruling despite the asserted factual error, and confirmed that reconsideration may be possible in exceptional situations.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Judicial Committee was bound in all circumstances to follow an earlier decision blindly, even where the earlier decision was said to rest on a material mistake of fact.

Analysis: The Board examined the authorities on re-hearing and the finality of earlier decisions, noting that while previous decisions of final appellate tribunals are entitled to great weight, no inflexible rule makes them binding in every circumstance. The authorities showed that a prior decision may be reconsidered in exceptional situations, and that the existence of a material factual misapprehension in the earlier decision could justify a different approach. The present reference was distinguished from a petition for re-hearing, and the Board rejected the contention that it was bound, without examination, to adhere to the earlier ruling notwithstanding the alleged error of fact.

Conclusion: The Board was not bound in all circumstances to follow the earlier decision blindly, and it could examine whether the earlier ruling should be departed from where material error was alleged.

---