Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only.

Manuel v Attorney General [1983] Ch 77

333 words (1 pages) Case Summary

16th Jul 2019 Case Summary Reference this In-house law team

Jurisdiction / Tag(s): UK Law

Manuel v Attorney General [1983] Ch 77

The Canada Act 1982 wasfound to be a valid act of the UK Parliament and not ultra vires


The Canada Act 1982 provides for a new procedure for amending the constitution of Canada under which the UK Parliament no longer has any role. Two Canadian Indian Chiefs challenged the 1982 Act as being ultra vires as it was inconsistent with the constitutional safeguards provided for the Indian peoples of Canada by earlier statutes of the UK Parliament.


The plaintiffs sought declarations that certain agreements and collateral warranties made between the British Crown and the Indian peoples would subsist. At first instance, it was held that the 1982 Act was not ultra vires. The plaintiffs appealed.


The appeal was dismissed. An Act of the UK Parliament which affected a Dominion was valid where that Dominion had requested and consented to its enactment. The 1982 Act was valid as the preamble to the Act expressly stated that Canada had requested and consented to the enactment of the Act. The Supreme Court of Canada had held that the constitutional law of Canada required various consents prior to the amendment of the Canadian Constitution. However, this case concerned a matter of English law and the Canadian law had no direct bearing upon the issues to be decided in the case. Furthermore, the Court referred to the case of Pickin v British Railways Board [1974] A.C. 765 in which it was established that the role of the Court is to consider the correct interpretation of an enactment but the Court must not stray into an inquiry into the manner in which Parliament performed its function, or consider whether a particular statute ought to be on the statute book at all.

289 words

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

Related Content

Jurisdictions / Tags

Content relating to: "UK Law"

UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Essays, case summaries, problem questions and dissertations here are relevant to law students from the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as students wishing to learn more about the UK legal system from overseas.

Related Articles