making changes of a fundamentally different nature to the relationship between the House of Lords and the Commons", was found to be within the scope of the Parliament Act 1911. The 1949 Act and, consequently, the Hunting Act were therefore held to be valid legislation and the appeal was dismissed. House of Lords The case was appealed again to the House of Lords, where it was heard by Lord Bingham, Lord Nicholls, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope, Lord Rodger, Lord Walker, Baroness Hale, Lord Carswell and Lord Brown on 13 and 14 July 2005. Nine judges were selected to hear the appeal, as opposed to the usual number of five, due to the significant constitutional issues the case raised. Appellants' arguments Sir Sydney Kentridge, lead counsel for the appellants, summarised their arguments as follows: Legislation made under the 1911 Act is delegated or subordinate, not primary. The legislative power conferred by section 2(1) of the 1911 Act is not unlimited in scope and must be read according to established principles of statutory interpretation. Among these is the principle that powers conferred on a body by an enabling Act may not be enlarged or modified by that body unless there are express words authorising such enlargement or modification. Accordingly, section 2(1) of the 1911 Act does not authorise the Commons to remove, attenuate or modify in any respect any of the conditions on which its law-making power is granted. Even if, contrary to the appellants' case, the Court of Appeal was right to regard section 2(1) of the 1911 Act as wide enough to authorise "modest" amendments of the Commons' law-making powers, the amendments in the 1949 Act were not "modest", but substantial and significant. If the Parliament Act 1949 were found not to be an Act of Parliament on any of the above grounds, all legislation passed using the Parliament Acts since the introduction of the 1949 Act, including the Hunting Act, would also not be valid Acts of Parliament, being passed only in accordance with the 1949 Act (rejection in two successive sessions and a delay of one year) as opposed to the more onerous requirements of the 1911 Act (rejection in three successive sessions and a delay of two years). Standing The House of Lords' judgment was given on 13 October 2005. Parties bringing judicial review must have sufficient interest in the challenged subject. Professor Mullen therefore suggests that