| dbo:abstract
|
- 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. 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. (en)
|
| dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
| |
| dbo:wikiPageID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageLength
|
- 10456 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
|
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
|
- dbc:1920_in_England
- dbr:Blackfriars,_London
- dbc:United_Kingdom_administrative_case_law
- dbr:Home_Office
- dbr:House_of_Lords
- dbr:John_Simon,_1st_Viscount_Simon
- dbr:Judicial_Committee_of_the_Privy_Council
- dbr:De_Keyser's_Royal_Hotel
- dbr:Debenture
- dbr:Defence_of_the_Realm_Act_1914
- dbr:John_Atkinson,_Baron_Atkinson
- dbr:Thomas_Warrington,_1st_Baron_Warrington_of_Clyffe
- dbr:Royal_prerogative_in_the_United_Kingdom
- dbr:R_v_Secretary_of_State_for_the_Home_Department,_ex_parte_Fire_Brigades_Union
- dbc:Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom
- dbr:Gordon_Hewart,_1st_Viscount_Hewart
- dbr:Andrew_Murray,_1st_Viscount_Dunedin
- dbr:Leslie_Scott_(British_politician)
- dbr:War_Office
- dbc:1920_in_case_law
- dbr:Ernest_Pollock,_1st_Viscount_Hanworth
- dbr:Executive_(government)
- dbr:First_World_War
- dbr:Bridewell_Palace
- dbr:King's_Counsel
- dbr:Polydore_de_Keyser
- dbr:Victoria_Embankment
- dbr:Receivership
- dbc:Constitutional_law
- dbr:Henry_Duke,_1st_Baron_Merrivale
- dbr:High_Court_of_Justice
- dbc:1920_in_British_law
- dbr:Arthur_Frederick_Peterson
- dbc:House_of_Lords_cases
- dbr:Abeyance
- dbc:United_Kingdom_constitutional_case_law
- dbc:Royal_prerogative
- dbr:Charles_Cripps,_1st_Baron_Parmoor
- dbr:Charles_Swinfen_Eady,_1st_Baron_Swinfen
- dbr:John_Fletcher_Moulton,_Baron_Moulton
- dbr:John_Hamilton,_1st_Viscount_Sumner
- dbr:Laker_Airways
- dbr:R_(Miller)_v_The_Prime_Minister_and_Cherry_v_Advocate_General_for_Scotland
- dbr:Lords_of_Appeal_in_Ordinary
- dbr:Master_of_the_Rolls
- dbr:Shoreham_Airport
- dbr:Lists_of_landmark_court_decisions
- dbr:Office_of_Works
- dbr:Petition_of_right
- dbr:UK_constitutional_law
- dbr:Statute_law
- dbr:Criminal_Injuries_Compensation_Scheme
- dbr:Arthur_Whinney
- dbr:Defence_Act_1842
- dbr:Laker_Airways_Ltd_v_Department_of_Trade
|
| dbp:citations
|
- [1920] AC 508; [1920] UKHL 1 (en)
|
| dbp:court
| |
| dbp:dateDecided
| |
| dbp:keywords
|
- Constitutional, Damages (en)
|
| dbp:name
|
- Attorney General v De Keyser's Royal Hotel Ltd (en)
|
| dbp:opinions
| |
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
| dcterms:subject
| |
| rdfs:comment
|
- 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. 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. (en)
|
| rdfs:label
|
- Attorney-General v De Keyser's Royal Hotel Ltd (en)
|
| owl:sameAs
| |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
| foaf:homepage
| |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
| is dbo:wikiPageRedirects
of | |
| is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
of | |
| is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |
