Ellen Street Estates Ltd v. Minister of Housing and Local Government [1934] 1 KB 590

Court: Court of Appeal

Facts: In 1922, Mr. Litham purchased a property on Ellen Street in London, believing he would be compensated for its clearance under the Housing Act 1921. An arbitrator later ruled that there would be zero compensation under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act 1919 (ALA 1919). By that time, the property had not been cleared, and the original resolution had expired. The Council passed a new resolution under the Housing Act 1930. Litham assigned his property to Ellen Street Estates Ltd (C), which challenged the clearance, arguing that ALA 1919 stated any inconsistent future provisions would be invalid, rendering the Housing Acts invalid.

Issue: Whether the Housing Acts under which the resolutions to clear the property were passed could be invalidated due to the provisions of ALA 1919.

Held: The court dismissed the appeal; C could not prevent the clearing from going ahead.

Key Judicial Statement: Scrutton LJ stated, “Parliament can alter an Act previously passed enacting a provision that is clearly inconsistent with the previous act… If the argument advanced by C is correct, Parliament can effectively bind subsequent Parliaments, which is something absolutely contrary to the constitutional stature of parliamentary sovereignty.”

💡Leveluplaw: This case reinforced the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, emphasizing that subsequent Parliaments cannot be bound by earlier legislation. It illustrates the flexibility of legislative power in the UK constitutional framework and the importance of the rule that Parliament can enact laws that may conflict with prior statutes.