New Parliamentary Sovereignty

Question 1

What are Dicey’s three parts to the definition of Parliamentary Sovereignty? Which book are they from?

Answer 1

1. Parliament can make or unmake whatever law it wishes
2. No body can set aside the legislation of Parliament
3. No Parliament can bind it’s successors

Question 2

What is the doctrine of implied and express repeal?

Answer 2

The doctrine of implied repeal dictates that if a latter statute is incompatible with an earlier statute, the court will apply the latter statute (Ellen Street Estates)

Express repeal is when Parliament expressly repeals a bill

Question 3

What is one exception to the doctrine of implied repeal?

Answer 3

Thoburn v Sunderland CC- Implied repeal may not be possible in cases in which “constitutional statutes” are concerned.

Question 4

What are four examples of Parliament being able to “make or unmake whatever law it likes”

Answer 4

1. Madzimabuto v Lardner-Burke- Convention
2. Cheney v Conn- International treaties
3. Burmah Oil- Restrospectivity
4. Crown Proceedings Act- Royal Preorgative

Question 5

Explain the manner and form argument

Answer 5

According to some Parliament may be able to dictate the manner and form of how future Parliament’s pass legislation. Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949. A-G of NSW v Trethowan

Question 6

Obiter comments suggest that the United Kingdom may be bound in a limited way by the Acts of Union. Lord Bingham says if this is true, it isn’t significant. Which case?

Answer 6

MacCormick v Lord Advocate

Question 7

Ellen Street Estates

Answer 7

If there is a conflict between an earlier and a latter statute, the court will apply the latter statute.

Question 8

Thoburn v Sunderland CC

Answer 8

The doctrine of implied repeal is not effective in constitutional statutes.

Question 9

Pickin v BR Engineering

Answer 9

The enrolled act rule was reaffirmed. Even where Parliament had been misled it was found that if the bill was on the Parliamentary roll, it was enacted.

Question 10

Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza

Answer 10

The court used their power to interpret legislation under s3 of the HRA liberally and read more than the literal meaning of a housing statute to give the claimant his rights under article 8

Question 11

The Belmarsh Case

Answer 11

The court made a declaration of incompatibility under s4 of the HRA to say that indefinite detention of foreign nationals was not legal under ECHR. The law was then changed.

Question 12

Litster v Forth Dry Dock

Answer 12

The House of Lords interpreted UK TUPE regulations contrary to their literal meanings to give effect to an EU directive.

Question 13

Factortame

Answer 13

The House of Lords applied s2(4) of the ECA1972 to grant an interim injunction to Factortame shipping from the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, effectively suspending an Act of Parliament.

Question 14

What are the two cases that deal with implied and express repeal?

Answer 14

Ellen Street Estates
If there is a conflict between an earlier and a latter statute, the court will apply the latter statute.

Thoburn v Sunderland CC
The doctrine of implied repeal is not effective in constitutional statutes.