Skip to main content

SQE1 · FLK1 · Parliamentary Sovereignty

Parliamentary Sovereignty: Core Doctrine and Modern Limits

Parliamentary Sovereignty: Core Doctrine and Modern Limits

The Classic Statement

Dicey's formulation: Parliament may make or unmake any law whatsoever; no person or body may override or set aside an Act of Parliament; no Parliament may bind its successor.

Key Authorities

  • R (Jackson) v Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56: House of Lords confirmed the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 are valid; obiter dicta from Lords Steyn, Hope and Baroness Hale suggested sovereignty may not be absolute — courts could refuse to apply legislation that sought to abolish judicial review or undermine the rule of law.
  • Thoburn v Sunderland City Council [2002] EWHC 195 (Admin): Laws LJ distinguished ordinary statutes (impliedly repealed by later inconsistent Acts) from constitutional statutes (e.g. Magna Carta, ECA 1972, HRA 1998) which can only be expressly repealed. This limits implied repeal doctrine.
  • R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the EU [2017] UKSC 5 (Miller 1): Supreme Court held the Crown cannot use prerogative to frustrate rights Parliament has conferred by statute; triggering Article 50 required primary legislation (European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017).

Enrolled Bill Rule

Courts will not look behind the Parliamentary Roll to question the internal procedure by which an Act was passed: Pickin v British Railways Board [1974] AC 765.

Implied Repeal

  • General rule: later statute impliedly repeals an inconsistent earlier statute.
  • Exception: constitutional statutes require express repeal (Thoburn).

Common Exam Traps

  • Confusing enrolled bill rule (courts accept Acts as passed) with rule of law arguments about content.
  • Assuming Parliament is completely unlimited — post-Jackson and Thoburn add nuance; the SQE tests recognition of the limits.
  • Treating Dicey as a statute — it is academic theory, not binding authority.
Exam tip: If a question asks whether a court can strike down an Act of Parliament, the answer remains no under orthodox doctrine — but flag obiter suggestions in Jackson if context requires.

Keep going