ABSTRACT
The justification of the non obstante clause was discussed in Thomas v Sorrell but a simple explanation was provided much later by Herbert CJ in Godden v Hales. In common with Clifford's explanation of private legislation the need for the non obstante clause was to make up for defects or limitations imposed by the general law; particularly when Parliament met infrequently and legislated little. In any case, once the Bill of Rights had outlawed non obstante clauses, any departure from a generally applicable Act of Parliament required private legislation. With the non obstante clause being damned by the Bill of Rights, it would be expected that there would be a flurry of private Acts to replicate its effect, but the first Bill arrived decades later when certain manufacturers tried to avoid duty. While some general Acts were amended to work new technology when it was made available, there was little to support any need to deal with patents more particularly.
