A high 2:1 (68) answer to a question about Parliamentary Supremacy.
References to Dicey & other academics to evaluate the effect of the EU on Parliamentary Supremacy - particularly the effect of Factortame and the ECA 1972.
Includes OSCOLA references to academics, cases & legislation.
IMPO...
‘The concept of Parliamentary sovereignty which has been fundamental to the constitution…
means that Parliament can do anything.’ [Lady Hale]
Describe and analyse the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, citing cases to illustrate your
answer.
High 2:1 Answer (68)
As Lady Hale chimes above, Parliamentary sovereignty is defined by Dicey as ‘[Parliament’s]
right to make or unmake any law whatever… no person or body… [has] a right to override or
set aside the legislation of Parliament’.1 However, this conception of Parliamentary
sovereignty has been diluted by EU law and recent case history, as amplified by Lord Steyn;
‘the classic account given by Dicey…can now be seen to be out of place in the modern
[U.K.]’.2 It calls into question whether, in practice, Parliamentary sovereignty was ever
bedrock in the constitution.
Wade expands on Dicey’s conception and proposes a central tenet in Parliament’s
sovereignty is that ‘no Parliament can bind it’s successors’. 3 Indeed, the courts in Vauxhall
Estates contend to this; ‘no Act of Parliament can effectively provide that no future Act shall
interfere with its provisions’4 and again in Ellen Street Estates, expressing that where a later
statute conflicts with an earlier one, there is a doctrine of implied repeal. 5 Parliament’s ‘one,
and only one limitation’6 is a great strength, their sovereignty is supposedly indestructible,
even by Parliament itself.
1
A.V. Dicey, ‘Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution’ (1982) Liberty Classics, 3-4.
2
Jackson and Others v Her Majesty’s Attorney General [2005] UKHL [102].
3
HWR Wade, ‘The Basis of Legal Sovereignty’ (1955) C.L.R 172, 174.
4
Vauxhall Estates v Liverpool Corporation [1932] 1 K.B. 733, 743.
5
Ellen Street Estates v Minister of Health [1934] 1 K.B. 590, 597.
6
HWR Wade, ‘The Basis of Legal Sovereignty’ (1955) C.L.R 172, 174.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller essaysfromalawstudent. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $10.48. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
