Entick v Carrington is the foundational case on the rule that the executive may act only with legal authority. The messengers of the King, acting under a warrant of a Secretary of State, broke into the house of Entick and seized his papers. The Court of Common Pleas held that the warrant had no basis in statute or the common law, so the officials were liable in trespass, and it rejected the argument that state necessity justified the search.

House of Lords held that local authorities must act reasonably and cannot ignore their fiduciary duty to ratepayers when setting wages, establishing early principles of Wednesbury unreasonableness.

Prisoners whose cases were decided by the Parole Board without an oral hearing challenged the Board's approach. The Supreme Court held that common law procedural fairness, informed by article 5(4) of the European Convention, requires an oral hearing where facts are in dispute, where the prisoner's explanation is important or where a hearing would add value. It is a leading case on common law constitutionalism.

A new Labour administration at the Greater London Council cut London Transport fares and paid for it with a supplementary rate on the boroughs. The House of Lords held this unlawful because the Transport (London) Act 1969 required economic transport services and because the council owed a fiduciary duty to ratepayers. A manifesto commitment could not override the statutory duty.

Landowners relied on a provision in a 1919 Act that stated that inconsistent provisions in later Acts would have no effect, but a later housing statute provided a different method of compensation. The Court of Appeal held that the later Act prevailed, since Parliament cannot bind itself as to the form of future legislation. It is the classic authority for the doctrine of implied repeal.

During the First World War the Crown took over a London hotel for the Royal Flying Corps, offering rent, while the owners claimed compensation under a statute. The House of Lords held that where a statute covers the ground previously occupied by the prerogative, the prerogative is displaced for as long as the statute applies, so the Crown had to proceed under the Act. It is the leading authority on the relationship between statute and prerogative.

A cinema company challenged a local authority condition forbidding children under fifteen at Sunday performances. The Court of Appeal dismissed the challenge and set out the limits of review for unreasonableness. The court may interfere only if the authority took account of irrelevant matters, ignored relevant ones, or reached a decision so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have reached it.

The Supreme Court quashed the Employment Tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal Fees Order 2013, which required claimants to pay fees to bring claims. The Court held that access to the courts is a constitutional right protected by the common law and the rule of law, and that the Lord Chancellor had no power to make an order that effectively prevented it. The case is a leading statement of the principle of legality and of access to justice as a constitutional right.

A prisoner challenged a policy requiring prisoners to be absent when their cells were searched, including when legally privileged correspondence was examined. The House of Lords held that the policy was unlawful because it interfered with the right to legal professional privilege more than was necessary. The speeches are important for the treatment of proportionality and of fundamental rights at common law.

Insurers challenged an Act of the Scottish Parliament that made pleural plaques a compensable condition, reversing a House of Lords decision. The Supreme Court dismissed their appeal and held that Acts of the Scottish Parliament are not subject to common law review on grounds such as irrationality or unreasonableness, though they are subject to review under the Scotland Act 1998 and the Convention rights. The case is a leading statement on the constitutional status of the Scottish Parliament and the rule of law.

This case concerned challenges to the Government process for authorising the High Speed 2 railway by a hybrid Bill. The Supreme Court dismissed the claims, holding that the EU environmental assessment directives did not require the Government to do more than it had done. The judgment of Lord Neuberger and Lord Mance also discussed the unwritten constitution, the role of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689 and the possibility of constitutional principles limiting even the powers of Parliament.

Spanish-owned fishing companies challenged Part II of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 as contrary to Community law and sought interim relief suspending it. The House of Lords held that English law gave the courts no power to grant interim relief against the Crown or to suspend an Act, but referred to the European Court the question whether Community law required it. This is the first stage of the Factortame litigation on the status of Community law against later Acts.