Parliamentary Supremacy Flashcards
Case of Proclamations 1611
The Crown’s ability to legislate had been restricted here anyway
British Railways Board v Pickin
Lord Reid - 1688 revolution was crucial - could no longer just dispense with an Act of Parliament
MacCormick v Lord Advocate
Dicta from the Scottish courts seemed to be less unequivocal as to the absolute status of Parliamentary soverignty - Lord Cooper
Pickin
Edinburgh Dalkeith Rly Co v Wauchope
Lee v Bude and Torrington Junction
Enrolled Bill rule of Lord Campbell affirmed by Lord Reid in Pickin - i.e. that a an Act of Parliament must be taken at face value and the courts cannot question it
Hall v Hall
Martin v O’Sullivan
It seems that even when litigants question P’s authority to legislate the courts will reject it
Croft v Dunphy
Dicey also affirmed that Parliament was sovereign even if in contravention with international law
Vauxhall Estates v Liverpool Corp
Ellen Street Estates v Minister of Health
Affirmed the impossibility of binding future Parliaments from repealing an Act
There have been other pockets where they have considered whether it would be possible but this seems to have been denied in Pickin
British Coal Corpn v R
The court stated that, even though P would be very unlikely to do so for political reasons, if P legislated over a dominion then the courts would be bound to give effect to it cf. Lord Sankey LC
R v Ndhlovu
NB the appellate decision in Southern Rhodesia and the distinction between British and local courts, despite P legislating, the local courts would not and did not give effect to Privy Council decisions
Manuel v AG
Megarry VC stated that ‘legal validity is one thing, enforceability is another’
The Prince’s Case
Per Jennings’ view of the ‘manner and form’ of things, the meaning of Parliament and the meaning of an Act of Parliament, are subject to the CL
Stockdale v Hansard
Bowles v Bank of England
Manner and form - the ‘new view’ - as soon as an Act has been identified as such then the Enrolled Bill rule takes effect
AG for NSW v Trethowan (entrenchment-new view)
There are two ways to consider whether the ‘new view’ is supported by this – this case either supports Dicey and the legislation was ultra vires or it supports the ‘manner and form’ new view
Bribery Comr v Ranasinghe
On the whole, Trethowan and other cases do not really support the new view that P was trying to entrench
R v Lord Chancellor, ex p Witham
Laws J affirmed, after off the bench speeches alluding to ‘striking down’ of a statute, that a piece of primary legislation could abrogate a ‘constitutional right’
