Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

Manuel v Attorney General

[1983] Ch 77

Case summary last updated at 06/02/2020 12:47 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case Manuel v Attorney General

This was the case of the Act of Parliament transferring sovereignty to Canada (see week 3), which was challenged by one province, who argued that the act was invalid because (1) there was a rule of not changing the constitution without the consent of all the provinces (the CA found that this was a mere convention and not enforceable) and (2) that the Canada Act 1982 was ultra vires since parliament in Westminster did not have the power to legislate for other countries. However as the initial court (CA avoided this point) said, parliamentary sovereignty was absolute and though a law might not be enforceable if, for example, parliament in Westminster declared it illegal to smoke in Delhi, it would nevertheless be recognised by the courts. The CA also avoided the question of whether parl can bind its successors.

Have you seen Oxbridge Notes' best Constitutional Law study materials?

Our law notes have been a popular underground sensation for 10 years:

  • Written by Oxford & Cambridge prize-winning graduates
  • Includes copious adademic commentary in summary form
  • Concise structure relating cases and statutes into an easy-to-remember whole
  • Covers all major cases for LLB exams
  • Satisfaction guaranteed refund policy
  • Recently updated
Constitutional Law Notes

Constitutional Law Notes >>