ws3

Question 1

Edinburgh & Dalkeith Railway Co v Wauchope (1842)

Answer 1

‘Enrolled Act’ - once an Act of Parliament has been entered onto the Parliamentary roll, the courts will not question its validity.

Question 2

Pickin v British Railways Board [1974]

Answer 2

Confirmed that the courts had no power to disregard an Act of Parliament, or to investigate proceedings which had taken place in Parliament to determine whether there had been any irregularity of procedure or fraud.

Question 3

R (on the application of Jackson and others) v HM Attorney-General [2005]

Answer 3

House of Lords was prepared to consider the validity of the Parliament Act 1949, which seemingly conflicted with the ‘Enrolled Act’ rule.

Lord Hope: ‘The rule of law enforced by the courts is the ultimate controlling factor on which our constitution is based’

Lord Bingham: ‘the bedrock of the British constitution is, and in 1911 was, the supremacy of the Crown in Parliament’.

Question 4

Cheney v Conn [1968]

Answer 4

Statute may override international law.

Question 5

Madzimbamuto v Lardner-Burke [1969]

Answer 5

Statute may override constitutional convention.

Question 6

Burmah Oil Co v Lord Advocate [1965]

Answer 6

Statute may operate retrospectively.

Question 7

Attorney-General v De Keyser’s Royal Hotel [1920]

Answer 7

Statute may abolish or curtail aspects of the Royal Prerogative

In this case, Act curtailed the power of Crown to requisition land without having to pay compensation (in this case had to pay)

Question 8

Ellen Street Estates v Minister of Health [1934]

Answer 8

A later Act of Parliament will impliedly repeal the provisions of an earlier Act to the extent of any inconsistency between the two Acts.

Question 9

Thoburn v Sunderland City Council [2002]

Answer 9

In obiter, Laws LJ stated that constitutional statutes could not be impliedly repealed as they are of increased significance. He suggested a test to determine whether a statute was ‘constitutional’ or not:

a. Must condition the legal relationship between citizen and state in some general, overarching manner; or
b. The statute must change the scope of fundamental constitutional rights.

He had in mind a very limited number of statutes of being sufficiently important to satisfy this test.

Question 10

H v Lord Advocate [2012]

Answer 10

In obiter, Lord Hope noted that, the Scotland Act would not have been altered through implied repeal due to its ‘fundamental constitutional nature’.

Question 11

The ‘HS2’ Case [2014]

Answer 11

Potential conflict between two constitutional instruments - EU Directive and Parliamentary Supremacy (in e.g. Bill of Rights) - suggestions in obiter that there may be a hierarchy of constitutional statutes.

Question 12

Brynmawr [2011]

Answer 12

When a constitutionally significant stature is passed, the presumption of consistency - when you interpret statute in line with previous statute to avoid conflict - is rebutted.

Question 13

A.G for New South Wales v Trethowan [1932]

Answer 13

Privy Council ruled that the failure of Australian Parliament for failing to hold a referendum over an Act which stated it needed one, meant the repeal was invalid.

Question 14

Pickstone v Freemans plc [1988]

Answer 14

‘shall be construed’ s 2(4) of ECA 1972

Example of where the House of Lords used the ‘purposive approach’ to follow an EU regulation

Question 15

R v SoS for Transport ex p Factortame (No 2)

Answer 15

‘shall take effect’ s 2(4) ECA 1972

Where national law conflicted with Directly Effective EU Law - House of Lords effectively suspended the Act

Question 16

McCarthys Ltd v Smith [1979]

Answer 16

Whilst the ruling in Factortame made it clear that Parliament cannot impliedly repeal EU law, Parliament can still expressly repeal EU law.

Lord Denning commented that if Parliament expressly repeals the TFEU, ‘then I should have thought it would be the duty of the courts to follow the statute of our Parliament’.

Question 17

Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004]

Answer 17

Courts have utilised interpretation - ‘as far as it is possible to do so’ s3 of HRA 1998 liberally

In this case, took the provisions beyond its literal meaning - extending housing rights to same-sex couples

Question 18

R (on the application of Anderson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] -

Answer 18

Whilst courts can only make a declaration of incompatibility with the HRA, this does create huge political pressure on the Government to repeal/amend.

In this case, Government abolished judicial of Home Secretary from Crime Act 1997

Question 19

Hirst v United Kingdom (no 2) [2005]

Answer 19

Example of declaration of incompatibility not leading to repeal or amendment - government instead reached a compromise with ECtHR