Hierarchy of Law
As no one has the lawful right to cause another harm (breach of peace - The Justice of the Peace Act 1361 ; R v Howell  ; R (Laporte) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire  UKHL 55 ), duties, rights and obligations can only be created by a meeting of the minds (full understanding of terms and conditions) followed by consent (agreement by ones freewill without mental of physical coercion) to those respective duties, rights and obligations.
An Act of Parliament is a common law contract between the advising and consenting parties (Monarch, Lords Spiritual - Church of England, Lords Temporal - House of Lords, and the Commons - MP's). Admitidly the MP's have the final say, but do they have your consent? This is an impossibility as it only takes a majority of the voters (not majority of the population within any constituency!), and even then only could be construed to be restricted consent to the 'manifesto'. However to do business in the House, they breach that possible contract and change allegiance to the Monarch, but also according to law 
The Coronation Oath Act 1688  expresses governance as:
“Will You solemnely Promise and Sweare to Governe the People of this Kingdome of England and the Dominions thereto belonging according to the Statutes in Parlyament Agreed on and the Laws and Customs of the same [the peoples]?”
Thereby it is admitted that statutes (today known as legislation), law and customs are 3 distinct restrictions on the authority of HM Government and its agents.
Parliament Assembled agrees on the statutes it will used to govern the people according to the peoples laws and customs is the only way this can be interpreted, and this is admitted in the current Monarch oath which expresses :
‘…govern the peoples of… according to their respective laws and customs…’
Parliament Assembled create Statute Law (administrative law) to govern us, the people according to our respective laws and customs.
That Parliament Assembled cannot create duties, rights and obligations on the people is further admitted in the constituting authority of those still governing today, the Bill of Rights 1688  which expresses:
‘... that noe Declarations Judgements Doeings or Proceedings to the Prejudice of the People in any of the said Premisses ought in any wise to be drawne hereafter into Consequence or Example...’ [THEREFORE ACTS OF PARLIAMENT ARE MERELY ADMINISTRATIVE LAW TO UPHOLD THE DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS CREATED BY THE SELF PROCLAIMED AUTHORITY TO GOVERN]
‘... doe pray that it may be declared and enacted That all and singular the Rights and Liberties asserted and claimed in the said Declaration are the true auntient and indubitable Rights and Liberties of the People [PUTTING THIS ABOVE THE AUTHORITY OF THOSE GOVERNING AND IS NOT UP FOR DEBATE] of this Kingdome and...’
‘... soe shall be esteemed allowed adjudged deemed and taken [NO COURT CAN OVER RULE THIS] to be and that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed as they are expressed in the said Declaration...’
"...and observed as they are expressed in the said Declaration And all Officers and Ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majestyes and their Successors according to the same in all times to come..."[FOR ALL TIMES UNTIL THE PEOPLE LAWFULLY CHANGE IT]
So from this there can be no dispute (as Judicial Notice can be taken as this is Primary legislation), affirming Acts of Parliament are subject to the peoples laws and customs!
So where are peoples Laws created?
The people create their respective duties, rights and obligations by contract. That is what they must govern us by!!!
The contract can be written or unwritten, and in any event as people have different socially conditioned belief systems they still can have differing expectations which can result in dispute (breaching the individuals and the people's peace).
If this cannot be settled in private between the disputing parties, then the public must settle it otherwise the breach of the peace will continue.
The second promise in the Oath Act 1688 creates an independent judiciary for the public dispute resolution system which expresses:
Will You to Your power cause Law and Justice in Mercy to be Executed in all Your Judgements.
This then creates public law, known as common law where principles of law create precedence applicable to all the people, and the settlement (judgement) is by order of the court to resolve the duties, rights and obligations between the disputing parties.
This is affirmed on legislation.gov.uk, Understanding Legislation, under the sub heading Case Law  which expresses:
“Case law is the set of rulings from court judgements that set precedents for how the law [fraudulent misrepresentation, should read ‘legislation’] has been interpreted and applied in certain cases. Case law is not held on legislation.gov.uk.”
Affirming common law precedence stands above any and all legislation.
If a precedence is not fair and just, then under the rules of equity we argue lawful excuse from existing common law precedence as was settled in the Earl of Oxford’s Case (1615) – A complex case that involved around the conflict of ownership of real estate between the Earl of Oxford and Magdalene College’s Master. The result of that case was a stand-off between Chief Justice Coke (the supreme authority of the common law) and Lord Chancellor Ellesmere (supreme authority of the court of Chancery) – as the latter forbade the execution of judgement obtained in the common law court.
The dispute between these two judges was submitted to King James I who upheld the injunction against the common law court and decreed the following:
“If there is a conflict between the common law and equity, equity shall prevail”
This common law precedence is legally affirmed in §49 of the Senior Courts Act 1981  where in the event of a conflict with the common law the rules of equity prevail, and it is an obligation of every court to apply the rules of equity to prevent a multiplicity of suites (so that the wheel is not reinvented in each case) and provide as complete (fair and just) a settlement as possible!
Affirming the rules of equity stands above common law
The rules of equity are our best expression of natural law as it pertains to human behaviour, where anything that is unconscionable (going against the conscience which determines right from wrong (harm)) is unlawful, simply summed up as follows:
- Honour - my word is my bond, I walk my talk, and
- Good faith - I do not put my self interest above that of any other, and
- Clean hands - all my dealings are open and transparent.
Simply natural law in respect of human behaviour is once someone stands on their rights if they are unopposed (thereby creating oxymoron's such as implied / assumed / presumed contract or consent) then they get their way... hence those who do not stand on their rights have none!!!
This was recently affirmed in the unanimous 11 Justice UK Supreme Court ruling in R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland  UKSC 41  that:
governance has been subject to ‘THE LAW OF THE LAND’ for centuries where:
“... the limits of prerogative powers [the source of authority to govern] were set by law and were determined by the courts.”, and
"... are responsible to a court of justice for the lawfulness of what they do, and of that the court is the only judge.’
The authority of HM Government and its agents are subject to, and restricted by, the will of Parliament Assembled as expressed in Acts of Parliament where HM Government and its agents
".... are accountable to Parliament for what they do so far as regards efficiency and policy, and of that Parliament is the only judge; ...",
“... the courts have exercised a supervisory jurisdiction over the decisions of the executive for centuries.”
So in regards supremacy it ranks as follows:
Natural law by whatever name, then
The rules of equity, then
Common law, then
Primary legislation, then
'No man can use their inequity as a defence, any more than a cause of action'
Montefori v Montefori 1762 .
For any command to have the force of law a it must meet the following three tests :
- Legitimate aim: The cause must be shown to exist (law does not deal with fiction) and have a good reason (be to the benefit of all), and
- Rational: The considered options and chosen action must be rational and meet the legitimate aim.
- Reasonable and proportionate: The chosen action must be the least imposing upon another’s rights.
Failure to do so is specifically to control the madness of crowds which are based upon dogmatic beliefs where Lord Diplock said that a decision would be 'IRRATIONAL—AND SO UNLAWFUL'  if it were:
“so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it.”