The reading shows that, at a broad level, no English judge disputes the fact that EC law obliges English courts to disapply a national law if it conflicts with EC law. Neither does the UK government dispute this. That is why it is essential that the narrower issue is picked up: that the case concerns disapplying UK legislation by an English court as an interim measure awaiting final determination of the main issue concerning EC law and its infringement. Look at the diagrammatic version of the essay question set out in Figure 9.6, below, and the way in which the limited knowledge so far obtained has been added to it. The diagrams of the cases in relation to issues, grounds and reasoning have been used to attach points to the issues raised by the question in Figure 9.6, below. What judges say constitutes powerful evidence for an argument. It can be seen that the cases can be allocated to issues and arguments formed to agree or disagree, in part or in total.

ABSTRACT

This point was well established by the UK and EC courts before the case of Factortame was brought to court. The judges treat this point as uncontroversial and taken for granted in the case of Factortame. The courts did make it clear but only by re-stating the position already existing. The issue in this case was whether the court could order legislation to be disapplied as an interim measure when the main case concerned an application that there was a potential conflict with EC law. The sticking point being that at the time of the disapplication there was no conflict proved.