481562
Description
Flashcards by chloe.crismani, updated more than 1 year ago
|
Created by chloe.crismani
over 10 years ago
|
|
| Question | Answer |
| Burmah Oil Co Ltd v Lord Advocate | Burmah Oil sued for damages to its oil fields in WW2. HL, held that the company could recover damages from the UK govt. However using the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty the govt passed the War Damage Act 1965, retrospectively, thus absolving any obligation to pay compensation |
| Thoburn v Sunderland City Council 2002 | 'We should recognise a heirarchy of Acts of Parliament' as 'it were "ordinary" statues and "constitutional" statues'. 'Ordinary Statues may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional Statues may not'. |
| M v Home Office (1994) | Can one branch find another branch in contempt? HELD: That the home sec had committed contempt of court in not obeying a judge's order to bring a deported Zairean teacher back to the UK. |
| Entick V Carrington (1765) | Limit of state powers. Sec of state has no power to issue 'general' warrants for the arrest and search of those publishing of seditious papers. NEED a judge ordered warrant. |
| Robinson V Secretary of State of Northern Ireland [2002] | Lord Bingham: NI Act 1998 ' is in effect a constitution' and must be 'interpreted generously and purposely'. |
| Duport Steel Ltd and Others v Sirs and Others [1980] | Concerning the relationship between Parliament and the Courts -LORD DIPLOCK 'Parliament makes the laws, the judiciary interprets them'. |
| BBC v Johns (inspector of taxes) [1965] | Concerning the possibility of creating new prerogative powers. LORD DIPLOCK: ' it is 350 years and a civil war too late for the Queen's court to broaden the prerogative'. |
| DPP v Jones | Lord Chancellor considers the 'public right of access to the public highway an 'issue of fundamental constitutional importance.' |
| R v Transport Secretary ex parte Factortame ltd (1990) | Spanish sold fishing rights in contention with the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. As such the plaintiff's were removed from the British Registry. P sued for the illegality of the act. Went to ECJ. Merchant Shipping Act was found to be incompatible. |
| A v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2004) | HL ruled that by a majority of 8 to 1 that the detention of suspects at Belmarsh Prision under s.23 of the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 was not compatible with HRA 1998. Many of the speeches were highly critical of govt. |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.