Ellen Street Estate v Minister for Health [1934] 1 KB 591

• A council under a Housing act made a scheme to demolish someone’s house. They failed to do so within the allowed time limit.

• Before they started a fresh application to demolish the house, a new housing act was introduced that clashed with the old one.

• The person whose house was to be demolished argued that the council had to proceed under the old housing act and that, since they failed under that act, they couldn’t demolish his house.

• However CA said that parliamentary sovereignty included a doctrine of implied repeal and therefore that the council would be proceeding under the new act.

Maugham LJ

The legislature cannot, according to our constitution, bind itself as to the form of subsequent legislation and it is impossible for Parliament to enact that in a subsequent statute dealing with the same subject matter there can be no implied repeal. If in a subsequent statute Parliament chooses to make it plain that the earlier statute is being to some extent repealed, effect must be given to that intention just because it is the will of the legislature.

• Orthodox belief that parliament cannot bind its successors