The Court of Appeal had to decide whether the provisions of a statute could be impliedly repealed because of the provisions of an earlier statute.

The legislature cannot bind itself as to the form of subsequent legislation.

Laws LJ discussed the effect of the Human Rights Act on statutory interpretation and the legal doctrine of legislative supremacy.

Since the coming into force of the Human Rights Act, the common law now recognizes a distinction between constitutional or fundamental rights on the one hand and other kinds of rights on the other.

The House of Lords had to decide whether the Parliament Act 1949 and the Hunting Act 2004 were valid Acts of Parliament.

The purpose of the Parliament Act 1911 was to limit the power of the House of Lords to block the bill which had been approved by the House of Commons.

The 1911 Act applies to any public bill subject only to the exceptions contained in the 1911 Act.

There is no constitutional principle, or principle of statutory interpretation which prevents a legislature from altering its constitution, in accordance with the provisions of a statute which empowers it to do so, for the purpose of altering the provisions of the empowering statute.

The court had to decide whether the House of Commons, by its own resolution, could extend its privileges and immunities.

The Lord Chief Justice held that the privileges and immunities of Parliament could be extended only by legislation which required the separate and simultaneous estates of the House of Commons and the House of Lords as well as the Royal Assent.

The question was whether the European Communities Act 1972 was capable of being impliedly repealed.

Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not.