British Coal Corp v The King
In theory Parliament could repeal the Statute of Westminster, but in practice that is unlikely ever to happen.
Facts
Canada passed legislation abolishing appeals to the Privy Council in criminal cases. The question was whether this legislation was valid, given that the Statute of Westminster 1931, passed by the UK Parliament, had removed the limits on the legislative powers of the dominions, including the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865.
Legal principle
The Privy Council held that the Canadian legislation was valid. Lord Sankey LC said that it is doubtless true that the power of the Imperial Parliament to pass on its own initiative any legislation that it thought fit extending to Canada remains in theory unimpaired, and that the Imperial Parliament could, as a matter of abstract law, repeal or disregard section 4 of the Statute of Westminster. But that is theory and has no relation to realities. The case illustrates the difference between legal sovereignty and political reality.
Related cases on parliamentary sovereignty
- Cheney v Conn [1968] 1 WLR 242
- Edinburgh and Dalkeith Railway Co v Wauchope (1842) 8 Cl & F 710
- Ellen Street Estates Ltd v Minister of Health [1934] 1 KB 590
- Lee v Bude and Torrington Junction Railway Co (1871) LR 6 CP 576
- MacCormick v Lord Advocate 1953 SC 396
- Madzimbamuto v Lardner-Burke [1969] 1 AC 645
- Manuel v Attorney General [1983] Ch 77
- Mortensen v Peters (1906) 8 F (J) 93
Studying public law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
