The traditional view of the legal supremacy of the UK Parliment Essay

The traditional view of the legal supremacy of the UK Parliment withstood all challenges to it. The UKs membership of the European Union has though finally ki - Essay Exampleon of the statute by both the Houses of fantan and the kick in of Royal Assent for those statutes, then the courts do not question the validity or legitimacy of the statutes and unless apply them.In Edinburgh & Dalkeith Railway Co. v Wauchope, the plaintiff railway company had obtained a private bet for its purposes. The defendant approached the court and argued that this private Act was detrimental to his interests and that it affected him unfavourably. He beseeched the court to examine the legitimacy of the Act. The court refused to intervene in the matter on the grounds that the Act had been passed in both the Houses of parliament, and that it had as well received the Royal Assent. Consequently, the court rejected the plea of the defendant. Thus, courts comply with statutes that have been properly enacte d by Parliament (Edinburgh & Dalkeith Railway Co. v Wauchope). The tendency of courts in dealing with the legitimacy of statutes, enacted by Parliament was clearly exhibited in Ex Parte Canon Sewyn (Ex Parte Canon Sewyn) and Pickin v British Railways Board (Pickin v British Railways Board).The Factortame compositors case challenged this sovereignty and compelled the English courts to suspend legislation that had been enacted by Parliament in due course. As such the Factortame case proved to be a major blow to the constitutional provisions of Parliamentary sovereignty. In R v. Secretary of State for Employment (R v Secretary of State for Employment, ex p. Equal Opportunities Commission) the House of Lords, on the basis of the Factortame decision, adopted a much more liberal approach. The Factortame decision had clearly demarcated the sovereignty of the Parliament and this made it possible for their Lordships to bring about far reaching changes to the constitution. In this regard, t heir Lordships, refrained from instructing the Secretary of State and they similarly did not inform him that the EC law was being breached by him. The House of Lords restricted their intervention to