Various shopkeepers appealed convictions for breach of regulations requiring food sold by weight to be described in metric amounts. They claimed that the Regulations made under the 1985 Act, to the extent that they were inconsistent with it impliedly repealed the 1972 Act to that extent (2(2)).
Held: The EC Treaty was unlike others in creating a new and unique legal order which was supreme above the legal systems of the member states. On accession under the 1972 Act, the United Kingdom bowed its head to that supremacy. The 1972 Act was a constitutional Act, and at common law could only be repealed by express provision. All specific rights and obligations created by European Law were incorporated into domestic law and ranked supreme by the 1972 Act, which was a constitutional statute, and could not be impliedly repealed. That the 1972 Act was a constitutional statute was derived from common law which recognised such a category. The fundamental legal basis of the United Kingdom’s relationship with the EU rested with the domestic, not the European legal powers.
Judges:
Lord Justice Laws, Mr Justice Crane
Citations:
Gazette 11-Apr-2002, [2001] EWCH Admin 195, [2003] QB 151
Links:
Statutes:
European Communities Act 1972 2(2), Weights and Measures Act 1985 1, Weights and Measures Act 1985 (Metrification) (Amendment) Order 1994 (SI 1994 No 2866), Unit of Measurement Regulations 1994 (1994 No 2867), Price Marking Order 1999 (1999 No 3042)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Levi Strauss and Co and Another v Tesco Stores Ltd and others ChD 31-Jul-2002
The trade mark owners sought to restrain the defendants from selling within the EU, articles bearing their mark which had been imported other than through their own channels. The defendants resisted summary judgement after reference to the European . .
Cited – Jackson and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Her Majesty’s Attorney General Admn 28-Jan-2005
The 2004 Act had been passed without the approval of the House of Lords and under the provisions of the 1911 Act as amended by the 1949 Act. The 1949 Act had used the provisions of the 1911 Act to amend the 1911 Act. The claimant said this meant . .
Cited – Oakley Inc v Animal Ltd and others PatC 17-Feb-2005
A design for sunglasses was challenged for prior publication. However the law in England differed from that apparently imposed from Europe as to the existence of a 12 month period of grace before applying for registration.
Held: Instruments . .
Cited – Watkins v Home Office and others HL 29-Mar-2006
The claimant complained of misfeasance in public office by the prisons for having opened and read protected correspondence whilst he was in prison. The respondent argued that he had suffered no loss. The judge had found that bad faith was . .
Cited – Miller and Dos Santos v The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and Others QBD 13-Nov-2016
Article 50 Notice Requires Parliament’s Authority
The applicant challenged a decision by the respondent that he could use Crown prerogative powers to issue a notice under section 50 TUE to initiate the United Kingdom leaving the EU following the referendum under the 2015 Act.
Held: Once the . .
Cited – Miller and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Exiting The European Union SC 24-Jan-2017
Parliament’s Approval if statute rights affected
In a referendum, the people had voted to leave the European Union. That would require a notice to the Union under Article 50 TEU. The Secretary of State appealed against an order requiring Parliamentary approval before issuing the notice, he saying . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Constitutional, European, Consumer
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167622
