“Courts cannot review Parliamentary proceedings or prevent legislation breaching EU obligations.”
Environmental groups challenged the HS2 high-speed rail project, arguing that Parliament's approval violated EU environmental law requirements and that the hybrid bill procedure was flawed. They sought judicial review of the parliamentary process.
Whether courts can review Parliament's internal procedures and prevent Parliament from passing legislation that allegedly breaches EU environmental law obligations.
The Supreme Court held unanimously that courts cannot review Parliament's internal proceedings under Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689, nor can they prevent Parliament from legislating in breach of EU obligations.
This case reaffirms core constitutional principles about parliamentary sovereignty and separation of powers. It demonstrates limits on judicial power even in the EU law context, distinguishing legislative processes from executive action subject to review.
You're reading the free summary of HS2 Action Alliance v Secretary of State for Transport. 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
HS2 Action Alliance v Secretary of State for Transport [2014] UKSC 3
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.