Search results
Legal Case Summary. Jackson v Attorney General [2006] 1 AC 262. Upholds the legality of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, limiting the House of Lords’ legislative powers. Facts. In November 2004, the British Government enacted the Hunting Act which prohibited fox hunting, inter alia. Whilst this bill received support in the House of Commons ...
- Stevenson Jacques & Co V Mclean
Legal Case Summary. Stevenson Jaques & Co. v McLean (1880) 5...
- Stevenson Jacques & Co V Mclean
Jackson v AG (2005) HL. Note that this case brings out two important points on Parliamentary supremacy relating to which HL appears to place limits on the concept of absolute PS as conceived by Dicey- that Parliament can make any laws; that Parliament cannot limit is own supremacy. The Lords took the position that:
In Bell's case, the negotiations were virtually concluded before he was aware that he would not have a role in the new company. A third justification is that the materials did not indicate that the indefeasibility of the employment agreements was integral to the termination agreements.
Oct 24, 2006 · Abstract. This paper, which is based on a paper given at a seminar held at the University of Glasgow in November 2005, discusses the sovereignty of Parliament in the light of the decision of the House of Lords in Attorney General v Jackson, which considered the question of whether the Parliament Act 1949 and the Hunting Act 2004 were valid Acts ...
- Facts
- Issues
- Decision/Outcome
Mr Bell was the managing director for five years of a company that was owned by Lever Bros Ltd. Mr Bell had traded for personal profit during his employment, which was contrary to his contract with the company. Without knowledge of this, Lever Bros Ltd made an offer of redundancy to Mr Bell, terminating his contract and offering a £30,000 payment a...
The main issue in this case was whether the redundancy contract that was created and accepted by Mr Bell, could be void by common mistake, due to later finding out about his personal trading. Lever Bros Ltd argued that this concealment and misconduct was a breach of his duty that was detailed in his employment contract.
The court held that the contract was not void, as the mistake was not an ‘essential and integral’ part of the contract. The personal trading that had happened during the employment was not related to the subject matter of the contract and was said to be minor compared to the profits Mr Bell had made for Lever Bros Ltd. Only a mistake to the identit...
Key Points. Obiter comments indicated that parliamentary sovereignty was subject to limitations and an Act of Parliament can be disapplied by the courts if it conflicts with the rule of law.
People also ask
What is Jackson v Attorney General?
What is Jackson v AG?
Is a contract void if Mr Bell made a mistake?
Who was Bell v Lever Bros Ltd?
Jackson v Attorney-General 16.21 The appellants in this 2005 case sought to argue that the Hunting Act 2004 was not an Act of Parliament and therefore had no legal effect. Their position was that the Hunting Act had been passed under the provisions of the Parliament Act 1949.
