judicial precedent.

A great introduction level summary may be found here: https://e-lawresources.co.uk/Judicial-precedent.php

The different levels of power between the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court may be found in the hierarchy of the courts, often referred to as judicial precedent (or the principle of stare decisis). This means that courts must follow precedents from a higher court, but are not bound to follow decisions from courts lower in the hierachy. For example, the Court of Appeal must follow precedent from the Supreme Court, but is not bound to follow decisions of Divisional Courts. Similarly, the Supreme Court can overturn its own judgement or any of those from lower courts.
Note: it is important to separate the actual ruling (ratio decidendi) from side notes (obiter dicta), as only the former will be binding. Also, as well as binding precedents you might want to look into persuasive precedents (for example decisions from lower courts, obiter dicta, or decisions from other jurisdictions).

Good summary. Worth noting as well that the CoA can overturn its own decisions, in the same way the SC can.

A great introduction level summary may be found here: https://e-lawresources.co.uk/Judicial-precedent.php

The different levels of power between the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court may be found in the hierarchy of the courts, often referred to as judicial precedent (or the principle of stare decisis). This means that courts must follow precedents from a higher court, but are not bound to follow decisions from courts lower in the hierachy. For example, the Court of Appeal must follow precedent from the Supreme Court, but is not bound to follow decisions of Divisional Courts. Similarly, the Supreme Court can overturn its own judgement or any of those from lower courts.
Note: it is important to separate the actual ruling (ratio decidendi) from side notes (obiter dicta), as only the former will be binding. Also, as well as binding precedents you might want to look into persuasive precedents (for example decisions from lower courts, obiter dicta, or decisions from other jurisdictions).

Good summary. Worth noting as well that the CoA can overturn its own decisions, in the same way the SC can.

not really?? CoA can only do so in three cases :1. THERE ARE CONFLICTING PAST DECISIONS 2. THERE IS A SUPREME COURT DECISION WHICH EFFECTIVELY OVERRULES THE COURT OF APPEAL DECISION 3. THE DECISION WAS MADE PER INCURIAM.
Other then these situations CoA cannot overrule its own past decision whereas SC can

Sure, but the general point I have made is not wrong - those are all circumstances where the CoA can overturn its own precedent. In reality, these categories are surprisingly broad (don’t forget about s. 2 HRA as well), and the CoA will usually be able to shoehorn the decision into one of these exceptions if they feel the need to. Alternatively, they will distinguish the facts of the case they are deciding from previous decisions, sometimes in a rather artificial way, to allow them to get to the outcome they want. The Criminal Division are also generally more flexible on these things than the Civil Division.

thank you for the detailed answer. I did read the law resource judicial precedent part that you shared the link to before asking this question. What I learned while studying this chapter is that Court of Appeal wanted the power of practice statement to be applied to them and House of Lords condemned them strongly for even thinking about it. Other then a quotation from one of the lords that gives no explanation as to why court of appeal could not have the the practice statement applied to them I have found nothing regarding this concern of mine. Yes hierarchy is important in judicial precedent but how is the (power of ) practice statement safe with House of lords and not CoA? was it an act of superiority on part of HoL??

Hmm, I didn't come across this in my undergrad, not sure it's something I am best placed to answer - sorry! Hopefully someone else in this thread has a little more experience

yes thank you! it seems like almost both CoA and SC have the same (power of) practice statement. And there is no difference since CoA seems to find loopholes and reverse its past precedent. I just wanted to know what is the importance of CoA not having the same powers as SC. I know one reason is the hierarchy since in order for judicial precedent to survive hierarchy is essential. but other then that??

The only good reason that comes to my mind is that if the CoA had broader powers to overturn its own decision-making, then that would sort of undermine the authority of the SC. As in, if the CoA think the law in a particular area (as decided by a previous CoA decision or a decision of the SC/HOL) is wrong, then rather than overturning that decision they should certify the question and send it up to the SC. Otherwise, what is the SC really there for?