Pepper v Hart established that courts can refer to parliamentary debates (Hansard) when interpreting ambiguous statutory provisions, overturning centuries of precedent. This landmark constitutional case fundamentally changed how judges approach statutory interpretation in the UK.

The Court of Appeal held that later Acts of Parliament impliedly repeal earlier conflicting provisions, establishing the doctrine of implied repeal in parliamentary sovereignty.

ECJ case establishing the doctrine of indirect effect, requiring national courts to interpret national law consistently with EU directives, even in disputes between private parties where direct effect is unavailable.

This case concerned whether a same-sex partner could succeed to a statutory tenancy under the Rent Act 1977 as a member of the deceased tenant's 'family'. The House of Lords held that the Act should be interpreted compatibly with human rights to include same-sex partners, demonstrating the courts' duty under the Human Rights Act 1998.

House of Lords held that for criminal damage to be 'reckless', there must be a risk of damage to property other than the instrument used to cause the damage.

Contractual interpretation focuses on what reasonable person would understand, not linguistic technicalities

A landlady was convicted under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965 for being concerned in the management of premises used for smoking cannabis, without knowledge of the illegal activities. The House of Lords quashed the conviction, holding that mens rea is presumed necessary for statutory offences absent clear contrary intention.

Statutory schemes override prerogative powers in the same field.

Certain statutes have constitutional status and cannot be impliedly repealed.

This House of Lords case established that psychiatric harm can constitute 'grievous bodily harm' and 'actual bodily harm' under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and that silent telephone calls can amount to assault. The decision significantly expanded the scope of assault and battery offences to include psychological injuries.

R v Cunningham established the modern test for 'maliciously' in statutory offences, requiring either actual intention to cause harm or subjective recklessness where the defendant foresees the risk of harm. This case rejected the previous objective test and emphasised that mens rea requires subjective awareness of risk.

Court of Common Pleas established that natural justice requires a hearing before a person is deprived of their property or rights, even where not expressly required by statute.

The court clarified the statutory priorities in company liquidation, establishing that preferential debts rank ahead of floating charge holders but after fixed charges.

Court establishes objective test for contractual agreement over subjective intentions

Service personnel brought claims against the Ministry of Defence for negligence causing death and personal injury. The Court of Appeal held that the Crown retained immunity from tortious liability in negligence for acts causing death or personal injury to members of the armed forces on duty, despite the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 having generally removed Crown immunity.

Court of Appeal case establishing the test for when acts become sufficiently proximate to constitute criminal attempts. The defendant's act of jumping onto a racecourse to stop a race was held not sufficiently proximate to attempted theft.

Courts cannot question the validity of Acts of Parliament once properly enacted.

EU law supremacy requires domestic courts to disapply conflicting national legislation.

Courts cannot invalidate Acts of Parliament regardless of international law breaches.

Ministers cannot use prerogative powers to frustrate Parliament's statutory scheme

Courts can review admin decisions despite ouster clauses if jurisdictional error found

Ratification of Maastricht Treaty a non-justiciable matter of high policy.

Ministers cannot adopt blanket policies that fetter discretionary statutory powers.

Ministers cannot refuse to exercise statutory powers for improper purposes

Court establishes landmark test for challenging unreasonable government decisions

House of Lords confirms EU law supremacy over UK Acts of Parliament

National courts must immediately disapply conflicting national law to give effect to EU law.

Defendants can challenge bye-law validity as defence in criminal proceedings.

Agreement to sell council house formed despite use of word 'may' in council's letter