Manuel and Others v HM Attorney General: CA 30 Jul 1982

The plaintiffs as representatives of the Indian Tribes of Canada sought declarations that the 1982 Act which provided for the independence of Canada was invalid. They appealed the strike out of their claims, saying that they had not been consulted as required, and that the Act would prejudice their interests. It was said that a convention had arisen for constitutional changes to follow consultation with the native peoples.
Held: The 1982 Act had been passed at the request of the Canadian Parliament, and it was not for an English court to seek to look behind the declaration in the Act that a request had been received. The Act made no reference to requests from the separate Dominions: ‘This court would run counter to all principles of statutory interpretation if it were to purport to vary or supplement the terms of this stated condition precedent by reference to some supposed convention, which, although referred to in the preamble, is not incorporated in the body of the Statute of Westminster.’ and ‘if and so far as the conditions of s 4 of the Statute of Westminster had to be complied with in relation to the Canada Act 1982., they were duly complied with by the declaration contained in the preamble to that Act.’

Cumming-Bruce, Eveleigh And Slade LJJ
[1982] 3 All ER 822, [1982] EWCA Civ 4, [1983] Ch 77
Canada Act 1982, Statute of Westminster 1931, British North America Act 1867 3
England and Wales
Appeal fromManuel and Others v Attorney-General; Noltcho and Others v Attorney-General ChD 7-May-1982
The plaintiffs were Indian Chiefs from Canada. They complained that the 1982 Act which granted independence to Canada, had been passed without their consent, which they said was required. They feared the loss of rights embedded by historical . .
CitedPickin v British Railways Board HL 30-Jan-1974
Courts Not to Investigate Parliament’s Actions
It was alleged that the respondent had misled Parliament to secure the passing of a private Act. The claimant said that the land taken from him under the Act was no longer required, and that he should be entitled to have it returned.
Held: . .
CitedBritish Coal Corporation v The King PC 1935
The Board was asked as to the competency of a petition for special leave to appeal to the King in Council from a judgment of a court in Quebec in a criminal matter. The petitioners argued that notwithstanding the provisions of a Canadian statute . .
CitedThe Bribery Commissioner v Ranasinghe PC 5-May-1964
S.29 of the Ceylon (Constitution) Order in Council 1946 gave the Ceylon Parliament power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the island. S.29(4) gave it the power to ‘amend or repeal any of the provisions of this Order’; but . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.241372