‘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.
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.
