A court is asked whether it may disapply a later Act of Parliament in favour of European Union law before the UK left the EU. Which case established that this could be done to the extent of inconsistency?
Answer and explanation
Correct answer: D. R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame (No 2)
- Step 1: Factortame held that EU law prevailed over inconsistent national legislation.
- Step 2: The effect was to disapply the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 in so far as it conflicted with directly effective EU law.
Answer
R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame (No 2).
Why not the others: Entick v Carrington is on executive power; Miller (No 2) is on prorogation; Pepper v Hart is on statutory interpretation.
Practise more Constitution and parliamentary sovereignty.
Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed SQE1 (Solicitors Qualifying Examination) mock tests.
More Constitution and parliamentary sovereignty questions
- Which principle states that Parliament can make or unmake any law and no body may override its legislation?
- Which statement about the effect of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 is correct?
- In R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the EU (2017), the Supreme Court held that what was needed before notice to leave the EU coul…
- In R (Miller) v Prime Minister (2019), what did the Supreme Court decide about the prorogation of Parliament?
- A Bill has been passed by the House of Commons but rejected by the House of Lords. In what circumstance can it become an Act without the Lor…
- Which of the following is a function of the Lord Chancellor after the Constitutional Reform Act 2005?