Attorney-General v De Keyser's Royal Hotel [1920]

Court: House of Lords

Facts: During World War I, the Crown, acting under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, requisitioned De Keyser's Royal Hotel in Blackfriars, London, to house personnel from the Royal Flying Corps. The hotel’s owners surrendered possession but later sought compensation under the Defence Act 1842, which stipulated compensation for requisitioned property. The Crown contended that since the requisition was made using royal prerogative, the owners were not entitled to compensation.

Issue: Was the Crown obligated to pay compensation under the Defence Act 1842 for the requisition of the hotel?

Held: The House of Lords dismissed the Crown's appeal and affirmed that the claimants were entitled to compensation as provided by the Defence Act 1842. The court held that when government power is regulated by statute, the royal prerogative does not apply, and the Crown must adhere to statutory requirements.

Key Judicial Statements: Lord Dunedin: “[I]f the whole ground of something which could be done by the prerogative is covered by the statute, it is the statute that rules. On this point I think the observation of [Swinfen Eady M.R.] is unanswerable. He says: 'What use would there be in imposing limitations, if the Crown could at its pleasure disregard them and fall back on prerogative?'” Lord Dunedin further stated: “The prerogative is defined by a learned constitutional writer as ‘The residue of discretionary or arbitrary authority which at any given time is legally left in the hands of the Crown.’” Lord Parmoor: “The constitutional principle is that when the power of the Executive to interfere with the property or liberty of subjects has been placed under Parliamentary control, and directly regulated by statute, the Executive no longer derives its authority from the Royal Prerogative of the Crown but from Parliament…”

💡 Leveluplaw: established that when statutory law governs an area, the royal prerogative cannot be invoked to bypass legislative requirements, particularly concerning compensation for property requisition. This decision affirmed that the Crown must compensate individuals for property taken for public use under statutory authority, reinforcing the principle that executive powers must operate within the limits set by Parliament. The principles articulated in this case have been pivotal in subsequent legal challenges against the misuse of royal prerogative, including significant modern cases like R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland, highlighting its lasting impact on constitutional law and individual rights.