Not exactly. The common law is developing the notion of constitutional statutes including, but not limited to, the 1689 Bill of Rights, the Human Rights Act 1998, the European Communities Act 1972, and pretty much all the Acts concerned with devolution to Wales, Scotland and Norn Iron. This essentially means that the doctrine of implied repeal doesn't apply to them in the way that it applies to every other Act. This doesn't prevent those Acts being amended or repealed, but it prevents Parliament from doing so accidentally. Parliament has to express the repeal in words that cannot be misunderstood - in all other cases, a later conflicting statute will repeal an earlier statutory provision, in so far as the two conflict, even if the later provision makes no mention of the earlier one.
Sunderland City Council is ringing bells here. Pikiwedia suggests Thoburn v Sunderland City Council [2002] EWHC 195 (Admin), [2003] QB 151.
no subject
Not exactly. The common law is developing the notion of constitutional statutes including, but not limited to, the 1689 Bill of Rights, the Human Rights Act 1998, the European Communities Act 1972, and pretty much all the Acts concerned with devolution to Wales, Scotland and Norn Iron. This essentially means that the doctrine of implied repeal doesn't apply to them in the way that it applies to every other Act. This doesn't prevent those Acts being amended or repealed, but it prevents Parliament from doing so accidentally. Parliament has to express the repeal in words that cannot be misunderstood - in all other cases, a later conflicting statute will repeal an earlier statutory provision, in so far as the two conflict, even if the later provision makes no mention of the earlier one.
Sunderland City Council is ringing bells here. Pikiwedia suggests Thoburn v Sunderland City Council [2002] EWHC 195 (Admin), [2003] QB 151.