Attorney-General v De Keyser's Royal Hotel Ltd

Last updated

Attorney General v De Keyser's Royal Hotel Ltd
Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom.svg
Court House of Lords
Decided10 May 1920
Citation(s)[1920] AC 508; [1920] UKHL 1
Case opinions
Lord Dunedin
Keywords
Constitutional, Damages

Attorney-General v De Keyser's Royal Hotel Limited is a leading case in UK constitutional law decided by the House of Lords in 1920 which exhaustively considered the principles on which the courts decide whether statute has fettered prerogative power. [1] It decided that the royal prerogative does not entitle the Crown to take possession of a subject's land or buildings for administrative purposes connected with the defence of the realm without paying compensation. It is the authority for the statement that the royal prerogative is placed in abeyance (is not used) when statute law can provide a legal basis for an action. [2]

Contents

Facts

De Keyser's Royal Hotel Ltd, as owner of a hotel situated in Blackfriars, London, claimed compensation under the Defence Act 1842 for occupation of the hotel by the armed forces during the First World War. The government relied on prerogative power under which 'less compensation would be payable'.

De Keyser's Royal Hotel was a 300–400 bedroom hotel on the Victoria Embankment, founded in the 1860s by Polydore de Keyser, that occupied the former site of Bridewell Palace. [3] [4] Officers of the Crown had taken possession of the hotel in 1916, purporting to act under statutory powers conferred by the Defence of the Realm Act 1914 (DORA). When challenged by the owner in petition of right proceedings, it was argued for the Crown that the competent military authority was empowered by the 1914 Act and regulations to take possession of land and buildings while the subject had no legal right to compensation.

The prospects for the hotel's business

Before the outbreak of the war with Germany, De Keyser's had been operating as a first class hotel, mainly for a continental clientele. By the time the hotel was taken for the wartime use of the Crown in May 1916, the hotel premises were held on a set of leaseholds expiring in 1961, but due to the loss of clientele in wartime, the hotel had been running at a loss. From June 1915 the company was in the hands of a receiver and manager, Arthur Whinney, appointed by the Chancery Court for the holders of the company's debentures (bearing annual interest of about £6,000). He had proceeded to cut some of the business losses, and before the take-over in 1916 he informed the official negotiating for the Crown that the hotel's business had improved considerably and future prospects were favourable.

The company's petition of right was presented in February 1917. Before the attorney-general's fiat was given for letting the petition of right proceed, a senior civil servant informed the Home Office that the hotel company was the only party in connection with requisitioning by the Office of Works to have refused to let the claim be dealt with under the DORA regulations. In the meantime, petition of right proceedings had previously been heard by the Court of Appeal in July 1915, [5] concerning the requisition of Shoreham Aerodrome, an airfield on the south coast, by another department, the War Office, and when the owner's appeal came to be heard by the House of Lords in July 1916, additional relevant historical information was available, resulting in an outcome that enabled the owner (The Brighton-Shoreham Aerodrome Ltd) to obtain compensation under the Defence Act 1842. [6]

Judgment

In 1919, the Court of Appeal (Sir Charles Swinfen Eady MR and Warrington LJ; Duke LJ dissenting), [7] reversing the decision of Mr Justice Peterson in the High Court, decided that De Keyser's Royal Hotel Ltd, as the hotel's owner, was entitled to compensation in the manner provided by the Defence Act 1842. [8]

On the Attorney-General's appeal in 1920, the House of Lords unanimously affirmed the Court of Appeal's decision, rejecting the government's claim to rely on prerogative power, and holding that once the statute had been enacted the prerogative powers fell into abeyance, for the duration of the life of its provisions should the statute be replaced or amended or modified. [9] Present at the House of Lords hearing were four Lords of Appeal in Ordinary: Lord Dunedin, Lord Atkinson, Lord Moulton, and Lord Sumner, plus Lord Parmoor (not a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, but a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council which had ruled on the case of The Zamora (1916)). [10] At the hearing, the Crown was represented by Sir Gordon Hewart, Attorney-General, and Sir Ernest Pollock, Solicitor-General, and the other party was represented by Sir John Simon KC and Leslie Scott KC. In an introduction to an authoritative commentary published soon after the decision, Simon described it as one of the leading cases in constitutional law, concerned with establishing the rights of individual citizens in the face of exceptional interference by the Executive. [11]

The principles established in the De Keyser's Royal Hotel case have been referred to in later judgments when the government's claim to rely on the exercise of power under the royal prerogative has been challenged, such as Laker Airways Ltd v Department of Trade (1976), concerning the revocation of the commercial airline operator's licence of Laker Airways, [12] R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union (1995), concerning changes to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, [13] and most recently in R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland (2019), concerning the royal prerogative to prorogue Parliament. [14]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bill of Rights 1689</span> English civil rights legislation

The Bill of Rights 1689 is an Act of the Parliament of England that set out certain basic civil rights and clarified who would be next to inherit the Crown. It remains a crucial statute in English constitutional law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial functions of the House of Lords</span> Historical judicial role of the UK House of Lords

Whilst the House of Lords of the United Kingdom is the upper chamber of Parliament and has government ministers, for many centuries it had a judicial function. It functioned as a court of first instance for the trials of peers and for impeachments, and as a court of last resort in the United Kingdom and prior, the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of England.

An Order-in-Council is a type of legislation in many countries, especially the Commonwealth realms. In the United Kingdom this legislation is formally made in the name of the monarch by and with the advice and consent of the Privy Council (King-in-Council), but in other countries the terminology may vary. The term should not be confused with Orders of Council, which are made in the name of the Council without sovereign approval.

Landmark court decisions, in present-day common law legal systems, establish precedents that determine a significant new legal principle or concept, or otherwise substantially affect the interpretation of existing law. "Leading case" is commonly used in the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth jurisdictions instead of "landmark case", as used in the United States.

The British peerage is governed by a body of law that has developed over several centuries. Much of this law has been established by a few important cases, and some of the more significant of these are addressed in this article.

<i>MacCormick v Lord Advocate</i> Scottish law case over regnal number of Elizabeth II

MacCormick v Lord Advocate 1953 SC 396 was a Scottish constitutional law case and Scottish legal action on whether Queen Elizabeth II was entitled to use the numeral "II" as her regnal number in Scotland, as there had never been an earlier Elizabeth reigning in Scotland.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Charles Cripps, 1st Baron Parmoor</span> British politician

Charles Alfred Cripps, 1st Baron Parmoor, was a British politician who crossed the floor from the Conservative to the Labour Party and was a strong supporter of the League of Nations and of Church of England causes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Crown Proceedings Act 1947</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Crown Proceedings Act 1947 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that allowed, for the first time, civil actions against the Crown to be brought in the same way as against any other party. The Act also reasserted the common law doctrine of Crown privilege but by making it, for the first time, justiciable paved the way for the development of the modern law of public interest immunity.

<i>Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service</i> United Kingdom constitutional law

Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service[1984] UKHL 9, or the GCHQ case, is a United Kingdom constitutional law and UK labour law case that held the royal prerogative was subject to judicial review.

Crown copyright is a type of copyright protection. It subsists in works of the governments of some Commonwealth realms and provides special copyright rules for the Crown, i.e. government departments and (generally) state entities. Each Commonwealth realm has its own Crown copyright regulations. There are therefore no common regulations that apply to all or a number of those countries. There are some considerations being made in Canada, UK, Australia and New Zealand regarding the "reuse of Crown-copyrighted material, through new licences".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Royal prerogative in the United Kingdom</span> Privileges and immunities of the British monarch

The royal prerogative is a body of customary authority, privilege, and immunity attached to the British monarch, recognised in the United Kingdom. The monarch is regarded internally as the absolute authority, or "sole prerogative", and the source of many of the executive powers of the British government.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitution of the United Kingdom</span> Principles, institutions and law of political governance in the United Kingdom

The constitution of the United Kingdom is the set of rules that make up the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a political body. Unlike in most countries, the constitution is not codifed, but is written into thousands of statutes and court cases, and found in unwritten political conventions and social consensus. The UK Supreme Court recognises principles, that guide the constitution, including parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law, democracy, and upholding international law. It also recognises that some Acts of Parliament have special constitutional status. These include Magna Carta, which in 1215 required the King to call a "common counsel" to represent people, to hold courts in a fixed place, to guarantee fair trials, to guarantee free movement of people, to free the church from the state, and to guarantee rights of "common" people to use the land. After the Glorious Revolution, the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Claim of Right Act 1689 cemented Parliament's position as the supreme law-making body, and said that the "election of members of Parliament ought to be free". The Treaty of Union in 1706 and the Acts of Union 1707 Kingdoms of England, Wales and Scotland, the Acts of Union 1801 joined Ireland, but the Irish Free State separated after the Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1922, leaving Northern Ireland within the UK. After struggles for universal suffrage, the UK guaranteed every adult citizen over 21 years the equal right to vote in the Representation of the People Act 1928. After World War II, the UK became a founding member of the Council of Europe to uphold human rights, and the United Nations to guarantee international peace and security. The UK was a member of the European Union, joining its predecessor in 1973, but left in 2020. The UK is also a founding member of the International Labour Organization and the World Trade Organization to participate in regulating the global economy.

<i>R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Northumbria Police Authority</i>

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Northumbria Police Authority [1989] 1 QB 26 was an English administrative law decision that first recognised the prerogative power to do whatever "was necessary to meet either an actual or an apprehended threat to the peace". It concerned the Home Office's decision to maintain a store of CS gas and plastic baton rounds. In 1986, a Home Office circular, 40/1986, authorised the Home Secretary to release this store to a police force without the approval of the Police Authority if Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary agreed that it was necessary. The Northumbria Police Authority brought a judicial review case against this decision, arguing that it was ultra vires. The Divisional Court which heard the case recognised a prerogative power to keep the peace, which authorised the Home Office's actions. On appeal to the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, the decision was confirmed, although several more grounds for allowing the distribution of the store were also given.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Polydore de Keyser</span> Lawyer, Lord Mayor of London

SirPolydore de Keyser, was a lawyer and the first Roman Catholic since the Reformation to be elected Lord Mayor of London. He was born in the Belgian city of Dendermonde, near Ghent, Belgium.

The royal prerogative is a body of customary authority, privilege, and immunity recognized in common law as belonging to the sovereign, and which have become widely vested in the government. It is the means by which some of the executive powers of government, possessed by and vested in a monarch with regard to the process of governance of the state, are carried out.

Compulsory purchase is the power to purchase rights over an estate in English land law, or to buy that estate outright, without the current owner's consent. In England and Wales, Parliament has granted several different kinds of compulsory purchase power, which are exercisable by various bodies in various situations. Such powers are meant to be used "for the public benefit". This expression is interpreted broadly.

<i>Manitoba Fisheries Ltd v R</i>

Manitoba Fisheries Ltd v R (1978), [1979] 1 SCR 101, is a leading Canadian property law decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on expropriation. The court held that the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act, RSC 1970, c F-13, which granted a Crown corporation a monopoly over fish exports from Manitoba, deprived the appellants of goodwill. This deprivation amounted to an uncompensated regulatory taking.

<i>Cushing v Dupuy</i> Canadian insolvency law case in the JCPC

Cushing v Dupuy is a Canadian constitutional law case decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, at that time the highest court of appeal for the British Empire, including Canada. The case was on appeal from the courts of Quebec, and dealt with the following issues:

<i>R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union</i> Constitutional decision of Supreme Court

R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union is a United Kingdom constitutional law case decided by the United Kingdom Supreme Court on 24 January 2017, which ruled that the British Government might not initiate withdrawal from the European Union by formal notification to the Council of the European Union as prescribed by Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union without an Act of Parliament giving the government Parliament's permission to do so. Two days later, the government responded by bringing to Parliament the European Union Act 2017 for first reading in the House of Commons on 26 January 2017. The case is informally referred to as "the Miller case" or "Miller I".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">De Keyser's Royal Hotel</span>

De Keyser's Royal Hotel was a large hotel on the Victoria Embankment, at its junction with New Bridge Street, Blackfriars, London. The location was formerly the site of Bridewell Palace.

References

  1. per Lord Justice Roskill, judgment in Court of Appeal in Laker Airways Ltd v Department of Trade (1976)
  2. Attorney General v De Keyser's Royal Hotel Ltd [1920] UKHL 1 , [1920] AC 508(10 May 1920), House of Lords (UK)Defence of the Realm – War – Exigencies of the Public Service – Crown – Royal Prerogative – Right of Crown to take Possession of Land and Buildings without Compensation – Defence Act, 1842 – Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act, 1914 and Regulations thereunder.
  3. De Keyser's Royal Hotel, Victoria Embankment, London, demolished for the erection of Unilever House, 1931
  4. The London Encyclopaedia by Christopher Hibbert, Ben Weinreb, Julia Keay, John Keay, 3rd Revised Edition (2010), p.183.
  5. In re A Petition of Right [1915] 3 KB 649
  6. Gerry R. Rubin, Private Property, Government Requisition and the Constitution, 1914-1927, Bloomsbury, 1994. pages 71–86 and 55ff. ISBN   1852850981
  7. [1919] 2 Ch. 197
  8. Defence Act 1842
  9. Official Law Report, Appeal Cases series
  10. Privy Council, The Zamora, On Appeal from the High Court, Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division. (In Prize.) Powers of King in Council – Royal Prerogative – Extent to which Orders in Council are binding – Inherent Powers of the Court – Preservation of Property in Specie – Neutral Cargo – Contraband – Seizure as Prize – Requisition before Adjudication – Validity – Prize Court Rules.
  11. The case of requisition: in re a petition of right of De Keyser's Royal Hotel Limited, Scott and Hildesley, Clarendon Press (1920)
  12. Laker Airways Ltd v Department of Trade [1977] QB 643, [1976] EWCA Civ 10
  13. R v Home Secretary, ex parte Fire Brigades Union [1995] UKHL 3 (05 April 1995) [1995] 2 AC 513
  14. The Supreme Court. "R (on the application of Miller) (Appellant) v The Prime Minister (Respondent)". The Supreme Court. Retrieved 24 September 2019.