In Thoburn v Sunderland City Council, Lord Justice Laws defines a constitutional statute as one that either conditions the legal relationship between citizen and state in a general manner, or, one that changes the scope of fundamental constitutional rights.
He expressed the view that: "Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not."
I want to know to what extent this is persuasive authority, or if this is now binding law.
An old gov.uk page says that "his remarks did not relate directly to the judgement being made and are controversial."
Has the position of the law changed since then or is it still the case that this is controversial and not fully established?