“A legislature can bind itself regarding the manner and form of future legislation.”
The New South Wales Parliament had passed legislation requiring any bill to abolish the Legislative Council to be approved by referendum. Later, the Parliament attempted to abolish the Council without holding a referendum.
Whether the New South Wales Parliament could bind itself as to the procedural requirements for future legislation, specifically requiring a referendum before abolishing the Legislative Council.
The Privy Council held that the Parliament had successfully bound itself. The attempt to abolish the Legislative Council without a referendum was invalid.
This case challenges absolute notions of parliamentary sovereignty by suggesting legislatures can impose procedural constraints on themselves. It has influenced debates about constitutional reform and the possibility of entrenched legislation in the UK.
You're reading the free summary of Attorney General for New South Wales v Trethowan. 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
Attorney General for New South Wales v Trethowan [1932] AC 526
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.