1. The advice given by the Prime Minister was justiciable (i.e. capable of review).

2. A decision to prorogue will be unlawful if the prorogation has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive.

3. Prorogation was unlawful in this instance due to the significant time periods in which Parliament would be prorogued and without reasonable justification for such time period.

4. The advice to prorogue was unlawful; the Order in Council was thus void and had no effect.

Mr Hart was a teacher at Malvern College, a public school. As a benefit of the job, his own children could attend the school at a discounted rate (one-fifth of the regular fees). The Inland Revenue wished to tax this benefit and Mr Hart claimed that no tax was payable, given the statement made by a minister in Hansard.

The rule against reference to Hansard as an extrinsic aid to interpretation was relaxed and is now permitted to be used in cases where (per Lord Oliver):

         (i) the legislation is ambiguous or obscure, or its literal meaning leads to an absurdity;

         (ii) the material relied on consists of statements by a minister or other promoter of the Bill together with such other parliamentary material as is necessary to understand such statements and their effect; and

         (iii) the statements relied upon are clear.