Although the court readily affirmed the NAO report as an important aspect of Parliamentary proceedings, the judgment appears more hesitant when it comes to endorsing the prevailing jurisprudence concerning factual disputes with the report’s contents.

The judgment, although noted as a ‘win’ for parliamentarians for now, is somewhat timid in its conclusions. But for the existing binding precedent, it appears that the court may have taken a narrower interpretation of the Article 9 protections. Rather invitingly, in this regard, the judgment considered that ‘<em>it is too late for a change of course other than by the Supreme Court.'</em>