“Courts cannot invalidate Acts of Parliament regardless of international law breaches.”
Canadian Indians challenged the Canada Act 1982, arguing that Parliament lacked authority to legislate without their consent and that the Act breached international obligations to indigenous peoples and principles of international law.
Whether UK courts can declare an Act of Parliament invalid on the grounds that it breaches international law obligations or exceeds Parliament's legislative authority over another country.
The Court of Appeal held that UK courts have no jurisdiction to declare Acts of Parliament invalid, regardless of alleged breaches of international law or constitutional principles.
This case reinforces the absolute nature of parliamentary sovereignty in UK constitutional law. It demonstrates that even serious allegations of international law breaches cannot provide grounds for judicial invalidation of Acts of Parliament.
You're reading the free summary of Manuel v Attorney General. 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
Manuel v Attorney General [1983] Ch 77 (CA)
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.