The ban on fox-hunting in the United Kingdom provoked large protests and a number of legal challenges. The English Court of Appeal and the House of Lords, while upholding the validity of the Hunting Act 2004 (UK), added to the controversy by accepting that the courts could determine the validity of an Act of Parliament, contrary to the accepted principle of parliamentary supremacy, and that there were implied limitations on the power of the Westminster Parliament to enact laws under the Parliament Act 1911 (UK). For good measure, the courts added warnings about the use of the Parliament Act to push through undemocratic measures. This article examines the judgments and draws parallels with the position in Australia.