ER 1135 (HL), stating that his claim was barred. As Lord Denning stated, the fifth Law Lord, Lord Pearson, was the odd man out, in that he agreed with the two learned Law Lords that the law did not support Dodd case, 1973 AC 518 : (1972) 3 WLR 333 : (1972) 2 All ER 1135 (HL), but agreed with the minority judges that Dodd, 1973 AC 518 : (1972) 3 WLR 333 : (1972) 2 All ER 1135 (HL) claim was not barred. This being the case, Lord Denning spoke of the precedential value of Dodd case, 1973 AC 518 : (1972) 3 WLR 333 : (1972) 2 All ER 1135 (HL) as follows:“How then do we stand on the law? We have listened to a most helpful discussion by Mr McCullough on the doctrine of precedent. One thing is clear.We can only accept a line of reasoning which supports the actual decision of the House of Lords. By no possibility can we accept any reasoning which would show the decision itself to be wrong. The second proposition is that if we can discover the reasoning on which the majority based their decision, then we should accept that as binding upon us. The third proposition is that, if we can discover the reasoning on which the minority base their decision, we should reject it. It must be wrong because it led them to the wrong result. The fourth proposition is that, if we cannot discover the reasoning on which the majority based their decision, we are not bound by it. We are free to adopt any reasoning which appears to us to be correct, so long as it supports the actual decision of the House.In support of those propositions, I would refer to the speech of Lord Dunedin in Great Western Railway Co. v. Owners of S.S. Mostyn, 1928 AC 57, pp. 73-74 (HL), and of Lord MacDermott in Walsh v. Curry, 1955 NI 112 (CA), pp. 124-125 and of Viscount
