R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame

March 05, 2024
Micheal James

Jurisdiction / Tag(s):

Case Summary:

R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame (1990) stands as a pivotal case in UK legal history, navigating the turbulent waters of conflicting loyalties between domestic law and the supremacy of European Community (EC) law. This case explores the tension between national sovereignty and upholding international obligations, raising crucial questions about legal compliance and the power of judicial review.

Facts of the Case:

  • In 1988, the UK implemented the Merchant Shipping Act, mandating a majority of British ownership and control for ship registration.
  • This legislation significantly impacted several Spanish fishing companies operating in the UK, including Factortame Ltd., who found themselves unable to register their vessels and continue their business.
  • Claiming a violation of fundamental EC Treaty provisions on freedom of establishment and non-discrimination, these companies challenged the Act’s legality.
  • The High Court ruled in their favor, declaring the Act incompatible with EC law, but the UK government appealed.

Issues:

  1. Supremacy of EC Law: Does EC law prevail over conflicting national legislation within member states?
  2. Balancing Sovereignty and Obligations: How does the principle of EC law supremacy affect national sovereignty and the power to enact domestic laws?
  3. Enforcement Mechanisms: Do individuals and courts have the power to enforce EC law against national authorities?

Decision:

The House of Lords, siding with the High Court and the fishing companies, issued a landmark ruling:

  • EC Law Supremacy: Within the UK legal framework, EC law reigns supreme, rendering any contradicting national legislation ineffective.
  • Treaty Breach: The Merchant Shipping Act, in this instance, violated core EC Treaty provisions and was therefore invalid.
  • Judicial Enforcement: UK courts hold the responsibility to enforce EC law and, if necessary, grant interim relief to prevent further breaches.

Significance of the Case:

This case profoundly impacted the UK’s legal landscape and its relationship with EC law:

  • Established Primacy: It firmly established the principle of EC law supremacy, mandating national courts to uphold and enforce it even when it contradicts domestic legislation.
  • Judicial Accountability: The case served as a testament to the power of judicial review in holding the government accountable for adhering to international obligations.
  • Legal Landscape Reshaped: This decision paved the way for further challenges to national laws incompatible with EC law, leading to significant changes in various sectors.

Additional Points:

  • Consider analyzing arguments from dissenting judges for a more nuanced understanding of the legal debate and potential concerns regarding national sovereignty.
  • Discuss the subsequent European Communities Act 1972 and its role in incorporating EC law into UK domestic law.
  • Explore the ongoing relevance of this case in the post-Brexit context and its potential influence on future legal debates.

Conclusion:

R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame (1990) stands as a cornerstone case, marking a turning point in the UK’s legal history. It solidified the principle of EC law supremacy, highlighting the complex interplay between national sovereignty and international obligations. While the specifics of the case may evolve with political realities, its core principles continue to resonate, reminding us of the importance of legal compliance and judicial oversight in upholding international norms within domestic legal systems.

Why Choose Us:

Law Exam Revision Service is an essential resource for law students preparing for their examinations. With a focus on comprehensive review materials, tailored practice questions, and expert guidance, our services offer invaluable support in mastering complex legal concepts and refining exam-taking strategies. Through structured study plans and personalized feedback, students can identify their strengths and weaknesses, enabling them to approach their exams with confidence and proficiency. Whether it’s revisiting fundamental principles or tackling intricate case studies, Law Exam Revision Service equips students with the tools and knowledge necessary to excel in their academic pursuits and achieve their goals in the legal profession.

Cite This Work

Select a referencing style to export a reference for this article:

All Answers ltd, 'R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame' (Mylawtutor.net, September 2012 ) <https://www.mylawtutor.net/cases/r-v-secretary-of-state-for-transport-ex-parte-factortame> accessed 23 April 2024
My, Law, Tutor. (September 2012 ). R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame. Retrieved from https://www.mylawtutor.net/cases/r-v-secretary-of-state-for-transport-ex-parte-factortame
"R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame." MyLawTutor.net. 9 2012. All Answers Ltd. 04 2024 <https://www.mylawtutor.net/cases/r-v-secretary-of-state-for-transport-ex-parte-factortame>.
"R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame." MyLawTutor. MyLawTutor.net, September 2012. Web. 23 April 2024. <https://www.mylawtutor.net/cases/r-v-secretary-of-state-for-transport-ex-parte-factortame>.
MyLawTutor. September 2012. R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame. [online]. Available from: https://www.mylawtutor.net/cases/r-v-secretary-of-state-for-transport-ex-parte-factortame [Accessed 23 April 2024].
MyLawTutor. R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame [Internet]. September 2012. [Accessed 23 April 2024]; Available from: https://www.mylawtutor.net/cases/r-v-secretary-of-state-for-transport-ex-parte-factortame.
<ref>{{cite web|last=Tutor |first=MyLaw |url=https://www.mylawtutor.net/cases/r-v-secretary-of-state-for-transport-ex-parte-factortame |title=R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame |publisher=MyLawTutor.net |date=September 2012 |accessdate=23 April 2024 |location=UK, USA}}</ref>

Related Cases

Dick Bentley v Harold Smith

. Last modified: April 15, 2024

Introduction to Dick Bentley v Harold Smith The world of contracts can be a complex one, especially when it comes to the interpretation of statements made during negotiations. Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd [1965] stands as a significant case in English contract law, offering valuable insights into the distinction between a […]

Performance Cars v Abraham

. Last modified: April 15, 2024

Introduction to Performance Cars v Abraham Performance Cars Ltd v Abraham (1962) stands as a landmark case in English tort law, specifically regarding the concept of causation in negligence claims. This case study delves into the factual background, the legal issue at stake, the court’s decision and reasoning, and the lasting impact of the case […]

R v Hennessy – 1989

. Last modified: April 15, 2024

Introduction to R v Hennessy – 1989 The criminal justice system grapples with complex issues when a defendant’s actions seem involuntary due to a medical condition. R v Hennessy (1989) stands as a significant case in English law, delving into the boundaries of the defense of automatism in the context of diabetic hypoglycemia. This case […]

go to top