Introduction

You should begin by explaining Dicey's definition of parliamentary sovereignty. You should also make it clear at this stage that the question focuses on the nature and scope of the court's jurisdiction over an Act of Parliament.

The jurisdictional question

Here you should consider what the court can and cannot do with an Act of Parliament. You should define an Act of Parliament as a bill which has received the necessary parliamentary assents. Here you should refer to:

• Stockdale v Hansard (1839)

• Bowles v Bank of England (1913)

• Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949

• Jackson v Attorney General [2006]

Substance: The first assertion of Dicey is that Parliament's legislative competence is unlimited. You should refer to relevant case law which backs up this point. In particular, you should refer to:

• Madzimbamuto v Lardner Burke [1969]

• Mortensen v Peters (1906)

• Cheney v Conn [1968]

Procedure: This part of your answer focuses on the enrolled bill rule - once a statute is passed its validity cannot be challenged on the ground of procedural irregularity. You should discuss the evolution of this rule in:

• Edinburgh & Dalkeith Railway v Wauchope (1842)

• Lee v Bude and Torrington J unction Railway (1871)

• Pickin v British Rail Board [1974]

Widening jurisdiction

You should begin this section by explaining the meaning and distinction between express and implied repeal. The relevant case law is:

• Thoburn v Sunderland City Council [2003]

• Vauxhall E states L td v Liverpool Corporation [1932]

• Ellen Street Estates, Limited v Minister of Health [1934]

You should then go on to discuss issues relating to the possible widening of jurisdiction. You should discuss the following:

• Article 9 Bill of Rights 1689

• Pepper v Hart [1992]

• R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Common wealth Affairs ex p Rees-Mogg [1994]

• Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd [1995]

• Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004]

• International Transport Roth GmbH v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003]