problem i find with law questions if i never have enough to say - this would probably be one of them for me
there are a couple of cases where the judges have given notion of support to the rule of law and indicated they'd be willing to undermine parliamentary sovereignty in order to comply with it. I can think of Jackson off the top of my head
however bear in mind that due to the political implications and scrutiny on parliament they do not often enact legilsation that is so controversial that it breaches the rule of law so hard to tell
If you want more to say, widen the scope of your interpretation of the rule of law, enlarging it to accommodate the most basic conception: the bare principle of legality. You can find more cases on that for instance the Venables and Anderson case