Introduction
The principle of parliamentary supremacy means laws passed by Parliament rank above all other legal sources, including royal powers. Attorney-General v De Keyser’s Royal Hotel Ltd [1920] AC 508 is a key case showing this basic rule of constitutional law. The case addresses how laws on payment for property taken by the state relate to the Crown’s wartime power to seize property. The House of Lords decided that when a law covers the same issue as a royal power, the law controls. This ruling greatly influenced the balance between the Crown and Parliament, confirming that laws override conflicting royal authority.
The Crown’s Royal Power
The Crown holds specific inherited powers, called royal powers, based on historical authority and used by the monarch. These powers, once wide-ranging, have been reduced over time by laws. During war, the Crown can use its royal power to take property for national security. This power, though needed, has limits. In the past, using this power did not always involve paying the property owner.
The Defence of the Realm Act 1914
The Defence of the Realm Act 1914 (DORA) gave the government broad power to manage resources and control property during World War I. The law set rules for taking property and created a system to pay owners when property was seized under these powers. The Act changed property requisitioning from a royal action to one controlled by legal rules. This shift marked a clear change in the legal ties between the Crown and the public.
The Case of De Keyser’s Royal Hotel
De Keyser’s Royal Hotel was taken by the government using royal power during World War I. The hotel owners argued they deserved payment under DORA. The government stated it acted under royal power, avoiding DORA’s payment rules. This dispute led to a legal review of the clash between royal powers and legal authority.
The House of Lords Decision
The House of Lords ruled for De Keyser’s Royal Hotel. Lord Dunedin, in the main judgment, stated that when a law and royal power cover the same matter, the law wins. He explained that the Crown cannot use royal power where a law already sets rules. DORA’s clear payment rules replaced the Crown’s power to take property without payment. This decision set a clear order between laws and royal powers, supporting Parliament’s supremacy.
Impact of the Ruling
Attorney-General v De Keyser’s Royal Hotel Ltd remains highly important in constitutional law. The case confirmed Parliament can limit or remove royal powers through laws. This ruling sharply reduced royal power and strengthened parliamentary control. The judgment shows how laws can direct the use of royal powers, keeping government actions open and legal.
Continuing Relevance of De Keyser’s
The ideas from De Keyser’s still matter in current constitutional law. The case is still a main example for explaining the link between laws and royal powers. It is often mentioned in debates about executive power limits and parliamentary control. The case stresses the courts’ duty to uphold legal standards and review government acts. This ongoing importance shows the lasting effect of Attorney-General v De Keyser’s Royal Hotel Ltd on constitutional rules.
Conclusion
The judgment in Attorney-General v De Keyser’s Royal Hotel Ltd firmly places laws above royal powers. The House of Lords found that DORA replaced the Crown’s power to take property without payment, confirming parliamentary control. This case is a key part of modern constitutional law, showing Parliament’s ability to set rules for royal powers. The rule from De Keyser’s still applies, offering a clear way to settle clashes between laws and royal powers. Such decisions ensure that even in crises, legal standards are followed and government acts stay within the law.
