10 named examples with their significance, drawn from the Panther database. Read them, then test yourself.
In test mode, tap an example to reveal why it matters.
The examples
Coughlan v Minister for Cabinet Office (2022): Court of Appeal upheld voter ID requirements - ruled in government's favour(2022)(tap to reveal)- Use as a counterpoint to cases where courts rule against the government (e.g. Miller 1, Miller 2). This case shows the judiciary does not automatically oppose executive action - it upheld the Elections Act voter ID provisions despite opposition claims they suppressed turnout. Analytically: supports the view that UK courts are independent but not systematically anti-government. For AO3: use to moderate claims that judicial review is a strong check on executive power - courts sometimes validate contested government policy.
R (Christie Elan-Cane) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2021] UKSC 26: Supreme Court ruled no legal obligation to provide non-binary 'X' passport option(2021)(tap to reveal)- Use alongside Coughlan as a second example of the Supreme Court ruling in the government's favour on a politically contested rights question. The court found the government's position lawful under the ECHR. Analytically: challenges the claim that the Supreme Court is a powerful check on the executive by showing it will often defer to Parliament and ministers on contested social policy. For AO3: pair with cases where the court ruled against government (Belmarsh, Miller) to evaluate how far judicial review constrains executive power.
The Miller Cases (2017 and 2019)(2024)(tap to reveal)- Miller 1 (2017): triggering Article 50 requires Act of Parliament. Miller 2 (2019): prorogation ruled unlawful. Supreme Court asserted limits on prerogative. ER 2024 noted these rulings uphold parliamentary sovereignty, not restrict it - a common student error. Best examples of judiciary as constitutional check on executive.
Prisoner Voting Rights: ECHR Ruling vs Parliamentary Sovereignty(tap to reveal)- ECHR ruled UK's blanket ban on prisoner voting incompatible with Convention rights. Parliament refused to implement the ruling. Only limited rights for some prisoners were eventually introduced. AO2: use to show the limits of judicial review in a parliamentary sovereignty system - Parliament can ignore international court rulings. AO3: use on 'agree' side of questions about whether rights are adequately protected; use on 'disagree' side for questions about whether constitutional reform has succeeded.
R (HS2 Action Alliance Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport (2014)(2014)(tap to reveal)- In HS2 (2014), the Supreme Court considered whether the government's decision to build the HS2 railway interfered with Parliamentary privilege. Lord Neuberger and Lord Mance suggested that certain constitutional principles - specifically Article 9 of the Bill of Rights protecting freedom of speech in Parliament - might not be subject to EU law supremacy, hinting at constitutional limits to EU power.
R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the EU (2017) - "Miller I"(2017)(tap to reveal)- In Miller I (2017), the Supreme Court ruled 8-3 that the government could not use the royal prerogative to trigger Article 50 (beginning the Brexit process) without Parliamentary authorization. The decision held that because triggering Article 50 would remove rights granted to UK citizens by EU law, an Act of Parliament was necessary. This led to the EU (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017.
R (Miller) v The Prime Minister (2019) - "Miller II" / Cherry(2019)(tap to reveal)- In Miller II (2019), the Supreme Court unanimously ruled 11-0 that Prime Minister Johnson's prorogation (suspension) of Parliament for five weeks in September 2019 was unlawful. The government claimed it needed to prorogue Parliament to prepare a new legislative agenda, but the court held that the true purpose was to limit Parliamentary scrutiny of the Brexit process, making it a misuse of the prerogative power.
R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame (1990)(1990)(tap to reveal)- In Factortame (1990), the House of Lords disapplied part of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 following an ECJ ruling that it breached EU law. The Act had required fishing vessels to be majority-British owned, disadvantaging Spanish fishing company Factortame Ltd. It was the first modern instance of a UK court setting aside an Act of Parliament, establishing the supremacy of EU law over conflicting UK statutes.
Rwanda and Parliamentary Sovereignty vs Courts (2022-24)(2025)(tap to reveal)- Supreme Court ruled Rwanda policy unlawful (15 Nov 2023). Government passed Safety of Rwanda Act 2024 to override. Lords inserted ten amendments in early 2024 forcing months of ping-pong with Commons; Bill eventually passed Apr 2024. Shows tension between parliamentary sovereignty and judicial review, and the Lords as a delaying chamber.
Supreme Court Ruling on Meaning of 'Sex' under Equality Act (April 2025)(2025)(tap to reveal)- On 16 April 2025, the UK Supreme Court ruled unanimously in For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers that 'sex' under the Equality Act 2010 means biological sex, not gender identity.