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
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 ...
- Tom Mullen
- 2007
Aug 6, 2019 · It is the contention of this essay to analyse the extensive dicta in the case, touching on academic perspectives on the character of law and legal structures, in order to consider the impact of Jackson on parliamentary supremacy today.
Feb 24, 2006 · In Jackson and Others v Her Majesty's Attorney General, the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords faced an unusual case – one in which it had to decide not only what Parliament intended, but whether it created a statute in the first place.
- 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...
5. The 1911 Act was described in its long title as. “An Act to make provision with respect to the powers of the House of Lords in relation to those of the House of Commons, and to limit the duration of Parliament.”. The words of enactment were preceded by a preamble with three recitals, which read:
People also ask
What is Jackson v Attorney General?
What is Jackson v HM Attorney General?
What is Jackson v AG?
Who was Bell v Lever Bros Ltd?
Is a contract void if Mr Bell made a mistake?
This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Jackson v HM Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56, House of Lords. This case concerned the interpretation of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 and the implications of this interpretation for the relationship between the Houses of Parliament.
