The Supreme Court has handed the government a partial victory in its appeal over the Northern Ireland Troubles Legacy Act, while confirming that the Windsor Framework can directly create enforceable rights in domestic courts. The decision in In re Dillon (No 2) [2026] UKSC 15 reshapes the law on disapplying primary UK legislation.
Handed down on 7 May 2026, the ruling is one of the most significant constitutional decisions since Brexit. It sets the terms on which UK courts can disapply primary legislation under Article 2(1) of the Windsor Framework.
What was Dillon (No 2) about?
The Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 ended new criminal investigations, civil claims and inquests for Troubles-related deaths and injuries. In their place came the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR), tasked with carrying out reviews rather than investigations. The Act also offered conditional immunity to those who cooperated with the ICRIR.
Four applicants brought the challenge. Martina Dillon’s husband Seamus was shot dead by loyalists outside a Dungannon hotel in 1997. John McEvoy, Brigid Hughes and Lynda McManus each had similar bereavements or injuries from Troubles violence.
They argued the Act breached Articles 2 and 3 ECHR and diminished rights protected by Article 2(1) of the Windsor Framework. Colton J disapplied parts of the Act in the King’s Bench Division in Belfast in February 2024. The Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland upheld much of that ruling in September 2024 ([2024] NICA 59). The government’s appeal then came to the Supreme Court.
What did the Supreme Court decide?
The court allowed the Secretary of State’s appeal on the disapplication ground. Justices accepted that Article 2(1) of the Windsor Framework engages a narrower test than the Court of Appeal had applied. Not every diminution of a right protected under the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement triggers disapplication of primary legislation.
Crucially, the court confirmed that Article 2(1) of the Windsor Framework can have direct effect. Individuals can invoke it in domestic proceedings. The government’s broader argument that the Framework lacks direct effect was rejected.
On the second ground, the court accepted that the ICRIR is capable of carrying out Article 2 ECHR-compliant investigations. The applicants’ cross-appeal, which had argued the ICRIR could never be compliant, failed in full.
What does the ruling add to the law?
This is the first appellate analysis of how UK courts should approach disapplication arguments under Article 2(1) Windsor Framework. The test now turns on a closer reading of the specific Belfast Agreement right said to be diminished, and on whether the diminution is sufficiently direct.
The judgment sits alongside Allister [2023] UKSC 5 on the Windsor Framework’s constitutional status. Dillon moves the analysis from the structural question of validity to the operational question of disapplication.
Solicitors working in judicial review, human rights or any cross-border Northern Ireland matter now have appellate authority on a question that has hung over post-Brexit constitutional law for several years. The ruling narrows the route to disapplication but confirms the Windsor Framework remains a live source of rights. Practitioners advising on retained EU law issues should expect Dillon to be cited routinely.
What about the political backdrop?
The current government inherited the Legacy Act from its predecessor and has signalled an intention to repeal it. A new Troubles Bill is expected. The Supreme Court ruling does not close down that legislative direction, but it does change the litigation landscape pending any replacement law.
Amnesty International, a respondent in the case, called the ruling “a bitter blow to victims”. Phoenix Law, acting for several applicants, has indicated an application to the European Court of Human Rights remains possible. The Irish inter-state case against the UK over the Legacy Act also continues.
For now, the judgment determines how thousands of pending Troubles-related civil claims will be handled. The wider constitutional questions about retained EU rights will run for years. The full judgment will be published on the Supreme Court website.