R (Factortame) v Secretary of State for Transport [1990-2000]

R (Factortame Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport [1990-2000] was a landmark judicial review case brought against the UK government by a group of Spanish fishermen. The fishermen contended that the UK had violated EU law by imposing a requirement that ships must have a majority of British owners to be registered in the country. This case holds historical significance in British constitutional law, marking the first instance where the courts asserted the authority to restrict the enforcement of an Act of Parliament during a trial and, ultimately, to set aside that Act if it was determined to be incompatible with EU law.

The EU's Common Fisheries Policy aimed at creating a common market for fisheries products, allowing free access to member states' waters. In 1985, with Spanish accession to the EU, concerns arose over fishing quotas, leading to the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 imposing registration conditions. Spanish-owned Factortame Ltd and others exploited the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 to register vessels as British, engaging in quota hopping. The UK enacted the 1988 Act, requiring a genuine connection with the UK for registration, leading to Factortame's legal challenge in 1988.

The litigation unfolded in several stages, with key milestones identified as Factortame I, Factortame II, Factortame III, Factortame IV, and Factortame V. In Factortame I, the High Court and later the House of Lords referred questions to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) regarding the legality of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. The ECJ confirmed the Act's incompatibility with EU law, highlighting the primacy of EU law over national law in areas where the EU has jurisdiction. Factortame II saw the ECJ directing the UK courts to disapply the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 that contravened EU law.

C-213/89 Factortame I [1990]: The High Court and House of Lords sought an ECJ reference on the legality of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. The Divisional Court referred the matter to the ECJ, which held that national courts must disapply national law conflicting with EU law pending ECJ interpretation. The ECJ confirmed the Act's incompatibility with EU law, highlighting the primacy of EU law over national law in areas within EU competence.

C-221/89 Factortame II [1991]: The ECJ ruled that provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 should be disapplied by UK courts. The ECJ ruled that the conditions for registration under the 1988 Act were incompatible with EU law, emphasising the freedom of establishment and non-discrimination.

C-46/93 Factortame III [1996]: The ECJ clarified principles of state liability for breaches of EU law, establishing conditions for reparation. The ECJ ruled that a member state could be liable for damages in an action by the European Commission for breach of EU law.

Factortame IV [1999] UKHL 44: The House of Lords ruled in favour of Factortame, acknowledging a serious breach of Community law by the UK government. The House of Lords ruled that damages could be awarded against the UK for losses suffered by private parties, applying the Francovich principle of state liability.

Factortame V [2000] EWHC 179: The High Court held that claims after 1996 were statute-barred under the Limitation Act 1980, setting a timeline for legal actions under the Limitation Act 1980.

Factortame raised questions about parliamentary sovereignty, challenging the traditional notion of legislative supremacy. The case ignited debates on whether the UK Parliament or the ECJ held ultimate sovereignty over applicable EU laws.

The Factortame case, spanning multiple stages and landmark decisions, underscored the delicate balance between national and EU law, reshaping perspectives on parliamentary sovereignty within the EU legal framework. The case's far-reaching implications continue to fuel scholarly discussions on the intersection of domestic and supranational legal systems.