There was no explicit right to appeal constitutional rights in the US wrt to laws being unconstitutional until SCOTUS declared one.
Since House of Lords handled the appeals role historically, it seems like much of the case law would be based on the assumption of legal appeals being reviewed by a sovereign entity, ie, parliament.
The UK has no constitution for a Supreme Court to claim trumps parliament’s laws.
(That said, I understand that the Israeli high court has claimed the ability to overturn parliamentary laws despite Israel not having a constitution either, so perhaps there is a chance a UK court tries the same?)
(That's if we accept that Parliament is no longer a court after the Supreme Court assumed its judicial responsibilities. Also, I'm likely wrong because everything one thinks one knows about the UK constitution is always wrong, but feel free to tell me how so.)
Ha, this cracked me up, and got me thinking whether it's possible that the UK developed legal bitrot because it hasn't had a good revolution in a while. so it's in a sense.