• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off

Card Range To Study



Play button


Play button




Click to flip

Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;

Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;

H to show hint;

A reads text to speech;

10 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back

Dicey's Doctrine

Positive Limb- Parliament can make or unmake any law it wishes to

Negative Limb - No one can challenge an Act of parliament

Third Limb- Theory of continuing sovereignty, no parliament can bind or be bound be other Parliaments

Support for Positive Limb

Mortensen v Peters

- acts of parliament are the supreme law of the land and courts are bound to apply it

Chenney v Conn

- what the statute says and provides is itself the law, highest form of the law, not for the courts to say an act of parliament is illegal. Able to override the international law at the time

Support for Negative Limb

Edinburgh Dalkeith Railways v Wauchope

- enrolled bill rule

- all the court can do is look at parliamentary roll, if it should appear the bill has passed both houses and received royal assent, no court can inquire into the mode it was introduced.

- court impose limits on themselves under PS

Support for Third Limb

Ellen Street Estates v Ministry of Health

- doctrine of implied repeal

- legislature cannot bind itself to the form of subsequent legislation

- 2 acts cannot be read together, later will prevail and earlier one will be impliedly repealed


-challenge to negative limb and third limb

- MSA at odd's with EU law, MSA more recent than ECA so should be given effect, according to implied repeal.

- 1972 parliament, has accepted to voluntarily limit it's sovereignty and managed to bind its successors from repealing impliedly


Factortame a constitutional revolution

1st time parliament has suspended act of parliament and bound others. Doctrine of PS has changed.

Jackson v AG

Obiter in Jackson

- manner and form argument

- limits to PS, acknowledges constitutional sovereignty as being more relevant

- first express support from judges in official capacity, courts may have authority to deem act of parliament unconstitutional if it violated constitutional principles

- significant challenge to dicey

Thoburn v Sunderland CC

Challenge to third limb

- depart from doctrine of implied repeal

- limits to be placed upon the doctrine in regards to statutes, recognised constitutional statues, which must be expressly repealed and are not affected by implied repeal.

constitutional stautes

magna carta



entrenched into the constitution, harder to displace


possible reform?

Ps abandoned in Factortame, following it case law shows shift in attitudes towards it

UK constitutional values a mix of Dicey's doctrine and opposing values