Jackson & Ors v Her Majesty's Attorney General

The House of Lords held that the Parliament Act 1949 was a valid Act of Parliament and that Acts enacted under the Parliament Acts procedure (including the Hunting Act 2004) are primary legislation of full legal effect. The court construed section 2(1) of the Parliament Act 1911 as applying to "any public bill" subject only to the express exceptions contained in the Act (notably money bills and bills extending the maximum duration of Parliament), and rejected the submission that legislation enacted under the 1911 Act is in principle "delegated" or subordinate legislation. The Speaker's certificate and the statutory wording were recognised as important, but the courts retained jurisdiction to interpret the scope of section 2(1).

The appellants, who had interests adversely affected by the Hunting Act 2004, sought declarations that (i) the Parliament Act 1949 was not an Act of Parliament and was of no legal effect and (ii) consequently the Hunting Act 2004 was of no legal effect. The challenge depended on the proper construction of section 2(1) of the Parliament Act 1911 and on whether the 1911 Act permitted the Commons, by the procedure in that Act, to amend the 1911 Act itself (as the Commons had done in 1949).

The proceedings were appellate: the Divisional Court and the Court of Appeal had declined the declaration sought; the case reached the House of Lords on appeal.

• Nature of claim: declaratory relief that the 1949 Act and Hunting Act 2004 were invalid because the 1949 Act could not lawfully be enacted under the 1911 Act.
• Issues framed by the House: (i) are Acts enacted under the 1911 Act primary or delegated legislation; (ii) what is the scope of section 2(1) of the 1911 Act; (iii) whether the 1911 Act permitted the 1949 Act to amend its own parliamentary timetable and conditions; (iv) whether any implied constitutional limits prevented the use of section 2(1) to amend the 1911 Act.
• Court's reasoning (concise): the House examined the statutory text, its historical and constitutional context, and prior authorities; concluded that the 1911 Act created a parallel route for enacting primary legislation and that the word "any" in section 2(1) was wide, subject to the Act's express exceptions; the 1911 Act was not to be treated as a mere delegation of power; Commonwealth authorities about colonial constitutions were distinguishable; ministerial statements and subsequent legislative practice confirmed the ordinary meaning and application; accordingly the 1949 Act validly amended section 2(1) and the Hunting Act 2004, enacted pursuant to that procedure, is valid.

The House dismissed the appeal and invited submissions on costs.

Appeal dismissed. The House held that the Parliament Act 1949 was validly enacted under the Parliament Act 1911 and that the Hunting Act 2004, enacted in accordance with the 1911 Act as amended by the 1949 Act, is an Act of Parliament of full legal effect. The court construed section 2(1) of the 1911 Act as wide enough to permit amendment of its conditions (subject to the express exclusions on the face of the Act) and rejected the view that enactments under the Parliament Acts are subordinate or delegated legislation.

Divisional Court (Administrative Court) refused the declarations: [2005] EWHC 94 (Admin). Court of Appeal dismissed the claim: [2005] EWCA Civ 126; reported [2005] QB 579. Appeal to the House of Lords: [2005] UKHL 56 — appeal dismissed.