Implied repeal

Concept in constitutional theory

The doctrine of implied repeal is a concept in constitutional theory which states that where an Act of Parliament or an Act of Congress (or of some other legislature) conflicts with an earlier one, the later Act takes precedence and the conflicting parts of the earlier Act become legally inoperable. This doctrine is expressed in the Latin phrase leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant or "lex posterior derogat priori".

Implied repeal is to be contrasted with the express repeal of legislation by the legislative body.

## Canada

[edit]

Further information: Quasi-constitutionality

In Canadian law, it is possible for a law to be protected from implied repeal by way of a "primacy clause" which states that the act in question supersedes all other statutes until it is specifically repealed. Acts with such primacy clauses are called quasi-constitutional.

## United Kingdom

[edit]

In the 2002 English case Thoburn v Sunderland City Council (the so-called "Metric Martyrs" case), Lord Justice Laws held that some constitutionally significant statutes hold a higher status in UK law and are not subject to the doctrine of implied repeal. The case specifically dealt with s.2(2) of the European Communities Act, but in his judgment Lord Justice Laws also held the view that the Parliament Acts and the Human Rights Act are "constitutional statutes" and in his opinion may not be subject to the doctrine of implied repeal.

A decade later in 2012, in a case before the United Kingdom Supreme Court, BH v The Lord Advocate (Scotland), Lord Hope held that "the Scotland Act can only be expressly repealed; it cannot be impliedly repealed; that is because of its 'fundamental constitutional nature'."[1][2]

See also: In re Jim Allister and others (EU Exit)

## United States

[edit]

Under United States law, "implied repeal" is a disfavored doctrine. That is, if a court can reconcile the two statutes with any reasonable interpretation, that interpretation is preferred to one that treats the earlier statute as invalidated by the later one.[3]

## See also

[edit]

* Desuetude
* Derogation
* Obrogation

## References

[edit]

1. ^ BH v The Lord Advocate (Scotland)[2012] UKSC 24, para. 30.
2. ^ Adam Perry and Farrah Ahmed: Are Constitutional Statutes 'Quasi-Entrenched'? Blog of the UK Constitutional Law Association
3. ^ Penziner v. West American Finance Co., 10 Cal. 2d 160 (Supreme Court of California Nov 24, 1937) ("The presumption is against repeals by implication, especially where the prior act has been generally understood and acted upon. To overcome the presumption the two acts must be irreconcilable, clearly repugnant, and so inconsistent that the two cannot have concurrent operation. The courts are bound, if possible, to maintain the integrity of both statutes if the two may stand together. Where a modification will suffice, a repeal will not be presumed.").

This law-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

|

* v
* t
* e

* v
* t
* e

Constitution of Canada

* List of constitutional documents
* Amendments to the Constitution
* Quasi-constitutional law

Pre-Confederation constitutional documents

* Iroquois constitution
* Mi'kmaq constitution
* Constitution of New France
* Royal Proclamation of 1763
* Quebec Act of 1774
* Constitutional Act of 1791
* Declaration of Independence of Lower Canada (1838)
* Report on the Affairs of British North America (1839)
* Act of Union 1840

Confederation

* Charlottetown Conference, 1864
* Quebec Conference, 1864
* Quebec Resolutions
* London Conference, 1866
* Fathers of Confederation

| Constitution Act, 1867|

* Canadian federalism
* Preamble
* Section 121
* Section 125

| Powers under
Section 91|

* Peace, order, and good government
* Trade and commerce
* Criminal law
* Matters excepted from s. 92

|

Powers under
Section 92|

* Licensing
* Works and undertakings
* Property and civil rights
* Administration of justice
* Fines and penalties for provincial laws
* Matters of a local or private nature

Amendments and other constitutional documents 1867–1982

* British North America Acts, 1867–1982
* Manitoba Act, 1870
* Alberta Act, 1905
* Saskatchewan Act, 1905
* Statute of Westminster, 1931
* Newfoundland Act, 1949

Patriation

* Fulton–Favreau formula
* Victoria Charter
* Kitchen Accord/Night of the Long Knives

| Constitution Act, 1982|

| Part I – Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|

* Preamble
* 1
* 2
* 3
* 4
* 5
* 6
* 7
* 8
* 9
* 10
* 11
* 12
* 13
* 14
* 15
* 16
* 16.1
* 17
* 18
* 19
* 20
* 21
* 22
* 23
* 24
* 25
* 26
* 27
* 28
* 29
* 30
* 31
* 32
* 33
* 34

|

Part II – Rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada|

* 35
* 35

Part III – Equalization and regional disparities|

* 36

Part V – Procedure for amending Constitution of Canada|

* 38
* 39
* 40
* 41
* 42
* 43
* 44
* 45
* 46
* 47
* 48
* 49

Part VII – General|

* 52
* 53
* 54
* 55
* 56
* 57
* 58
* 59

Conventions

* At His Majesty's pleasure
* Cabinet collective responsibility
* Disallowance and reservation
* Responsible government
* Fusion of powers
* King-in-Parliament
* Implied repeal
* Individual ministerial responsibility
* Interpellation
* Question Period
* Parliamentary privilege
* Parliamentary sovereignty
* Reserve power
* Royal prerogative

Constitutional debate

* Triple-E Senate
* Meech Lake Accord
* Charlottetown Accord
* Calgary Declaration
* Other unsuccessful amendments

Interpretation of the Constitution

* Indigenous self-government
* Pith and substance
* Double aspect
* Equal authenticity rule
* Paramountcy
* Living tree
* Implied Bill of Rights
* Interjurisdictional immunity
* Purposive theory
* Dialogue principle

Provincial constitutions of Canada

* Constitution of Alberta
* Constitution of Quebec
* Constitution Act (British Columbia)

* Canada portal
* Category

*[v]: View this template
*[t]: Discuss this template
*[e]: Edit this template