R v Sec. of State, Ex p Factortame, [1990] 2 AC 85

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

Margaret, the director of an environmental advocacy group, has launched a challenge against the Marine Preservation Act 2024, arguing it conflicts with a relevant EU directive that imposes strict conservation standards. She contends the new domestic legislation allows industrial activities that contravene specific provisions of the EU directive. During litigation, the court identifies a direct conflict between the Act’s provisions and the EU instrument, which is recognized as having direct effect. Margaret’s legal team seeks an interim injunction to halt enforcement of the Act while awaiting a preliminary ruling from the European Court of Justice. This case raises significant questions about the priority of EU law over UK statutes following the principles established in an important House of Lords decision.


Which of the following statements best reflects how the principle from R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame Ltd (No 1) applies to this conflict?

Introduction

The principle of parliamentary sovereignty, a key part of the United Kingdom's constitutional system, means Parliament holds full authority to create laws. No other body, including the courts, can overturn an Act of Parliament. However, the UK's entry into the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1973, and the passing of the European Communities Act 1972, changed this structure. This Act made European Community (EC) law part of UK law. R v Secretary of State for Transport, Ex p Factortame Ltd (No 1) [1990] 2 AC 85 became a major case, examining the relationship between national and EU laws. It established that directly applicable EC law takes priority over conflicting UK laws. The House of Lords evaluated how EC law’s direct effect and higher authority affected traditional views of parliamentary sovereignty.

The Background of the Factortame Dispute

The Merchant Shipping Act 1988, which aimed to limit foreign ownership of UK fishing vessels, was at the center of the Factortame case. Spanish fishing companies, operating through UK-registered subsidiaries, argued the Act’s rules treated them unfairly based on nationality and breached EC law principles on freedom of establishment and equal treatment. These rules are set out in the Treaty of Rome, which allows businesses to operate in any Member State and bans nationality-based discrimination.

The Preliminary Ruling and the House of Lords' Decision

The Factortame claimants asked for a temporary block on the Merchant Shipping Act 1988’s enforcement while the European Court of Justice (ECJ) decided whether the Act followed EC law. The High Court referred the EC law question to the ECJ under Article 234 (formerly Article 177) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. This process lets national courts ask the ECJ to interpret EU law. When the House of Lords reviewed the request to pause the Act, they faced a constitutional issue. Blocking the Act would temporarily set aside a law passed by Parliament, clashing with parliamentary sovereignty.

The ECJ's Decision and the Priority of EC Law

The ECJ ruled the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 conflicted with EC law. This required the House of Lords to choose between upholding parliamentary sovereignty or following the ECJ’s ruling on EC law’s higher status. The ECJ stated that by joining the European Community, Member States accepted EC law’s priority over national laws.

Setting Aside National Law: A New Approach

The House of Lords decided not to apply parts of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. This recognized that directly effective EC law overrides conflicting UK laws. It created a rule that UK courts must follow directly effective EC law when national laws clash with it. This adjusted the understanding of parliamentary sovereignty. While Parliament kept the power to pass laws, courts could now refuse to apply those conflicting with directly effective EC law.

Impact on Parliamentary Sovereignty and UK Law

Factortame changed how UK and EU laws interacted. It confirmed EU law’s priority in the UK and allowed courts to ignore conflicting UK laws. This started debates about parliamentary sovereignty. Some claimed Factortame weakened it, while others argued Parliament had chosen to limit its power by joining the EEC and passing the 1972 Act.

Subsequent Developments

The Factortame case led to further rulings (Factortame No 2 and No 3), dealing with state liability for breaking EC law. The case remains relevant despite the UK leaving the EU. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 repealed the 1972 Act, but Factortame still shows how international and domestic laws can interact.

Conclusion

R v Secretary of State for Transport, Ex p Factortame Ltd (No 1) is a landmark case in UK constitutional law. The House of Lords’ choice to disapply UK law in favor of EC law established EU law’s priority in the UK. This moved away from traditional parliamentary sovereignty, raising ongoing questions about its effects. The case shows how national legal systems handle international obligations, balancing parliamentary sovereignty and EC law. Factortame continues to influence debates about national lawmaking power and international agreements. It remains a key example of how domestic and international legal systems interact.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of December 2024. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

Practice. Learn. Excel.

Features designed to support your job and test preparation

Question Bank

Access 100,000+ questions that adapt to your performance level and learning style.

Performance Analytics

Track your progress across topics and identify knowledge gaps with comprehensive analytics and insights.

Multi-Assessment Support

Prepare for multiple exams simultaneously, from academic tests to professional certifications.

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal