“Scottish Parliament Acts can be judicially reviewed but enjoy wide legislative competence.”
The Scottish Parliament passed the Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (Scotland) Act 2009, allowing claims for damages for pleural plaques and other asbestos conditions. Insurance companies challenged the Act, arguing it was outside the Parliament's competence and violated their human rights.
Whether Acts of the Scottish Parliament are subject to judicial review, and whether the 2009 Act was within the Scottish Parliament's legislative competence under the Scotland Act 1998?
The Supreme Court held that while Acts of the Scottish Parliament can be judicially reviewed, the 2009 Act was within the Parliament's competence and did not violate human rights. The challenge failed.
This case clarified the constitutional status of devolved legislation and the scope of judicial review in the devolution context. It's crucial for understanding the legal framework of Scottish devolution and the balance between judicial oversight and democratic governance.
You're reading the free summary of AXA General Insurance Ltd v Lord Advocate. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
AXA General Insurance Ltd v Lord Advocate [2011] UKSC 46
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.