Public Cases

Prerogative powers cannot be used to trigger Article 50 TEU without an Act of Parliament, as doing so would remove statutory rights conferred by the European Communities Act 1972.

Employment tribunal fees of up to £1,200 were quashed as unlawful after causing a 66–70% drop in claims, violating the constitutional right of access to justice and frustrating Parliament's employment rights legislation.

Convictions based solely or decisively on untested hearsay evidence do not necessarily breach Article 6 ECHR, as English law's Criminal Justice Act 2003 safeguards are sufficient without applying the ECtHR's sole or decisive rule.

A local authority challenged a PCT's refusal to fund an adult's continuing healthcare, raising the Wednesbury unreasonableness standard in inter-authority NHS funding disputes.

Fox-hunting campaigners challenged the validity of the Hunting Act 2004, arguing the Parliament Act 1949 — used to pass it — was itself unlawfully enacted. The House of Lords unanimously rejected the challenge, while several Law Lords delivered landmark obiter remarks questioning the absolute nature of parliamentary sovereignty.

Indefinite detention of non-UK terror suspects without charge under s 23 ATCSA 2001 was held disproportionate and discriminatory under Articles 5 and 14 ECHR, with the House of Lords issuing a landmark declaration of incompatibility.

A same-sex partner was entitled to succeed to a full statutory tenancy under the Rent Act 1977, as s 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 required 'spouse' to be read compatibly with Articles 8 and 14 ECHR.

Market traders prosecuted for using imperial measures argued the Weights and Measures Act 1985 had impliedly repealed the ECA 1972. The court rejected this, holding constitutional statutes can only be repealed expressly.

The Secretary of State's power to fix the tariff for mandatory life sentence prisoners was incompatible with Article 6(1) ECHR, as he was not an independent and impartial tribunal. A declaration of incompatibility was issued under s 4 HRA 1998.

Where evidence of a prior consensual sexual relationship between defendant and complainant is so relevant to consent that its exclusion would render the trial unfair, s 41 YJCEA 1999 must be read under s 3 HRA 1998 to admit it.

Statutory qualifying thresholds for part-time workers' unfair dismissal and redundancy rights were held to indirectly discriminate against women and incompatible with EEC Treaty Article 119, as the Secretary of State failed to objectively justify them.

A minister cannot use royal prerogative to introduce a tariff compensation scheme while an unrepealed statutory scheme remains on the books, as doing so constitutes an abuse of power amenable to judicial review.

A minister of the Crown acting in official capacity is subject to the court's supervisory jurisdiction, including injunctions and contempt proceedings — the executive obeys the law as necessity, not grace.

The royal prerogative of mercy is susceptible to judicial review. A Home Secretary who considers only a free pardon, without examining other forms such as a conditional pardon, commits an error of law.

A pregnant employee hired to cover maternity leave was dismissed when her own pregnancy was discovered. The House of Lords examined direct and indirect sex discrimination before referring the case to the ECJ.

Spanish fishing vessel owners challenged the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, leading the House of Lords to disapply an Act of Parliament for the first time to protect Community law rights pending an ECJ ruling.

Employees dismissed one hour before a business transfer were held to be protected under TUPE 1981, as the House of Lords implied words into reg 5(3) to prevent evasion of EU Directive 77/187 protections.

Female warehouse operatives were entitled to bring an equal value claim against a higher-paid male comparator, even though the employer could point to other male employees doing like work with them.

Refusing a passport under royal prerogative is subject to judicial review where the decision affects individual rights such as freedom of travel, not high foreign policy.

The GCHQ case established that prerogative powers can be subject to judicial review based on justiciability, confirmed legitimate expectation as a ground for review, and authoritatively set out illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety as the three heads of judicial review.

A female employee's exclusion from post-retirement travel benefits enjoyed by male colleagues' families was held to violate EEC Treaty Article 119, with the House of Lords adopting the statutory construction consistent with Community law obligations.

Canadian Indian chiefs challenged the Canada Act 1982 as ultra vires, but the Court of Appeal held that an express declaration of Dominion consent in a statute conclusively satisfies s 4 Statute of Westminster 1931, and English courts have no power to invalidate an Act of Parliament.

A female employee earning £50/week claimed equal pay with her male predecessor earning £60/week, leading the Court of Appeal to confirm that EU law overrides inconsistent UK domestic legislation.

Cabinet Ministers' opinions expressed in discussions are protected by a duty of confidence, but only so long as disclosure would still undermine collective Cabinet responsibility — a functional, not a fixed time-based, test.

Courts cannot go behind an Act of Parliament to investigate whether Parliament was misled during the legislative process — any remedy lies with Parliament itself, not the courts.

The Crown's power to sign treaties, including the Treaty of Rome, is a prerogative beyond court review. Courts will not make declarations on hypothetical future parliamentary acts.

Following Southern Rhodesia's unlawful Unilateral Declaration of Independence, the Privy Council held that the illegal regime's emergency detention regulations were void, and that no convention could limit Parliament's absolute legal sovereignty over the territory.

A taxpayer argued that income tax assessments were unlawful because revenues funded nuclear weapons contrary to the Geneva Conventions. The court held that unincorporated international conventions cannot override clear domestic statute, and tax charges are valid regardless of how the revenue is spent.

A body incorporated by Royal Charter is not automatically an agent of the Crown. The BBC could not claim Crown immunity from income tax as it was an independent legal persona, not an instrument of government.

Deliberate pre-planned destruction of private oil installations to deny resources to advancing Japanese forces gave rise to a right to compensation from the Crown, even when exercising the royal prerogative in wartime.

Parliament cannot bind itself as to the form of future legislation. A later Act inconsistent with an earlier one repeals it by implication, regardless of any entrenchment clause in the earlier statute.

A colonial legislature may validly entrench constitutional provisions by prescribing a mandatory referendum as a 'manner and form' requirement — any Bill passed without compliance is a nullity.

A later Act of Parliament necessarily repeals an earlier inconsistent Act by implication, and no entrenchment clause in an earlier statute can prevent this constitutional outcome.

Where Parliament has legislated over a subject previously governed by royal prerogative, the Crown must act within the statutory framework and cannot revert to prerogative to avoid compensation obligations imposed by statute.

A duly enacted Act of Parliament binds all affected parties even if passed without proper notice to an interested party, and courts have no power to strike it down for procedural irregularities in its parliamentary passage.

State power must be grounded in positive legal authority — if a power cannot be found in law, it does not exist. Unlawful general warrants issued by the Secretary of State could not justify entry, search, or seizure of private papers.

The King cannot create new offences or alter the common law by royal proclamation alone — only Parliament holds that power. A foundational rule of law authority.

The King cannot personally adjudicate any legal cause, criminal or civil. All matters must be determined by courts of justice applying the artificial reason of the law, not the sovereign's natural reason.