R (HS2 Action Alliance Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport
| R (HS2 Action Alliance Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Citation(s) | [2014] UKSC 3 |
| Keywords | |
| Constitution, parliamentary sovereignty | |
R (HS2 Action Alliance Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport [2014] UKSC 3 is a
UK constitutional law case, concerning the conflict of law between a national legal system and European Union law
.
Facts
The HS2 Action Alliance,
EIAD 2011
article 6(4).
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that the UK has constitutional instruments that the courts would not interpret to be abrogated without close scrutiny.[2]
207. The United Kingdom has no written constitution, but we have a number of constitutional instruments. They include
Act of Union 1707. The European Communities Act 1972, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 may now be added to this list. The common law itself also recognises certain principles as fundamental to the rule of law. It is, putting the point at its lowest, certainly arguable (and it is for United Kingdom law and courts to determine) that there may be fundamental principles, whether contained in other constitutional instruments or recognised at common law, of which Parliament when it enacted the European Communities Act 1972did not either contemplate or authorise the abrogation.
See also
- Thoburn v Sunderland City Council
- UK enterprise law
- UK constitutional law
References
- ^ Topham, Gwyn (22 January 2014). "HS2: supreme court rejects appeal by opponents of high–speed rail link". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 24 May 2020.
Judges unanimously dismissed claims that the government was failing to comply with the strategic environmental assessment directive, and that the hybrid bill before parliament would breach the environmental impact assessment.
- ^ HS2 Action Alliance Ltd, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Transport & Anor [2014] UKSC 3 at para. 207, [2014] 2 All ER 109, [2014] WLR 324, [2014] PTSR 182, [2014] 1 WLR 324, [2014] WLR(D) 28, [2014] UKSC 3 (2014), Supreme Court (UK)