Parliamentary Sovereignty and Legal Perspectives

Parliament can create any law it desires, and no court or other institution can overturn its decisions.

A legal rule where a future Parliament cannot limit the power of a future Parliament. For example, a Parliament cannot bind itself from repealing future legislation.

A way to prevent future changes to a particular law. It makes the law 'unbreakable' for future Parliament.

A legal rule where another Parliament cannot change a law unless a specific condition is met. For instance, needing a referendum to change the law

Parliamentary sovereignty is not a written law, but a 'constitutional fixture.' It is a fundamental principle of the political system.

The doctrine of implied repeal states that a later statute implicitly repeals an earlier incompatible statute, even if there's no explicit mention of this in the later legislation. This means Parliament can revoke or modify any earlier law, even without explicitly saying so.

This theory emphasizes the historical context of Parliament's power. It suggests that Parliament's authority stems from the Glorious Revolution of 1688, where it gained supremacy over the monarchy. Wade argues that Parliament's sovereignty is a historical fact, not a principled justification.

This theory focuses on how Parliament can control the process of lawmaking. It allows for procedural entrenchment, where Parliament can set rules for enacting legislation (how it should be passed, debated, etc.). However, it doesn't allow for subject-matter entrenchment, preventing Parliament from dictating future laws' content.

This perspective sees Parliament as bound by unwritten, fundamental principles. It suggests that while Parliament has the power to enact laws, it cannot infringe upon certain core values, like democracy or human rights. These principles act as checks on Parliament's authority.

The principle that the courts should interpret legislation compatibly with human rights, as enshrined in the Human Rights Act 1998, section 3(1).

The idea that Parliament cannot abolish judicial review, as it is a fundamental principle within the rule of law.

The principle that courts should assume that Parliament did not intend to exclude their jurisdiction unless explicitly stated in the legislation.

While the UK court system doesn't have the power to strike down laws, they do engage in constitutional scrutiny to protect fundamental principles.

The concept that the ambiguity and lack of a written constitution in the UK creates stability by avoiding direct confrontation between the branches of government.

The idea that since Parliament has the power to create and change any law, it can also limit itself by choosing to accept limitations on its power.

The theory that Parliament's power is absolute and cannot be changed by any legal means, only through a revolution.

The theory that Parliament's sovereignty can be modified by legislation, as long as it's done in the correct way.

The idea that Parliament's power is not fixed but can change over time depending on how judges interpret the constitution.

The case where the House of Lords ruled that EU Law takes precedence over UK law, effectively contradicting the traditional doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty.

Tribunals derive their powers from statute and must act within the scope of their authority, adhering to principles of natural justice and good faith.

A clause in a statute that seeks to exclude judicial review of decisions made by a tribunal.

If a tribunal exceeds its statutory powers, its decisions are considered null and void, meaning they have no legal effect.

The courts have the power to determine whether a tribunal has acted within its authority, ensuring that tribunals do not overstep their boundaries.

Parliament can exclude judicial review of decisions made by tribunals, but the language used in the statute must be clear and unambiguous.

A legal concept where a future Parliament cannot limit the power of a future Parliament. It suggests that Parliament cannot bind itself to certain legislation.

This case challenged the validity of the Hunting Act, which was passed without the House of Lords' consent, using the Parliament Acts. It confirmed that the Parliament Acts provide a valid path to enact legislation, even without the House of Lords' approval.

This case established that the European Communities Act 1972 is a constitutional statute, meaning it has a special status and is not subject to implied repeal.

"The Legislature cannot, according to our constitution, bind itself as to the form of subsequent legislation" This case emphasized that Parliament cannot bind itself as to the form of future legislation, meaning it can always repeal or modify previous laws.

This case highlights the hierarchy of constitutional values, suggesting that some values or statutes might be more fundamental than others. A conflict between the ECA and a fundamental principle might lead to a balancing act.

Parliament cannot bind future Parliaments in terms of subject matter. A future Parliament can change or repeal any law passed by a previous Parliament, even if the earlier Parliament intended it to be permanent.

The 1911 Parliament Act restricted the power of the House of Lords to delay legislation by the House of Commons, changing the balance of power between the two houses. This change in the legislative process is an example of how Parliament can bind its successors.

The concept that the British Parliament is the supreme law-making body and its laws cannot be challenged or overturned by any other body, including the courts.

Parliamentary sovereignty is seen as a concept created by common law rather than a written constitution. This means it evolved from judicial decisions and principles established by judges.

Lord Steyn argues that Parliamentary sovereignty, while a fundamental principle, is subject to other core constitutional principles, suggesting a hierarchy among them. He believes that in exceptional cases involving the abolition of judicial review, the courts might have to intervene to protect these higher principles, even if Parliament tries to abolish them.

The principle that courts have the power to review the legality of government actions, including those of tribunals, ensuring that they act within their powers and follow the law.

In the Anisminic case, the court ruled that an ouster clause (designed to prevent judicial review) wouldn't prevent review if the tribunal had misconstrued the law and acted beyond its authority.

In the Anisminic case, the court established that the lawfulness of a tribunal's decision is a prerequisite for it to be considered a valid 'determination' under an ouster clause. If a tribunal makes an illegal decision, its action falls outside the protection of the clause.

The courts have a role in protecting fundamental rights even in the context of Parliamentary sovereignty. They will challenge any attempt by Parliament to undermine these rights or create a legal system where there is no judicial oversight.