Ellen Street Estates Ltd v Minister of Health [1934] 1 KB 59...

Facts

• In 1922, Mr. Litham acquired property on Ellen Street, later targeted for clearance under the Housing Act 1921.
• An arbitrator determined no compensation would be awarded for the compulsory purchase under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act 1919 (ALA 1919).
• The original clearance resolution expired, prompting a new resolution under the Housing Act 1930.
• The property was then acquired by Ellen Street Estates Ltd, who challenged the compulsory purchase order.
• The challenge was based on the argument that Section 46 of the Housing Act 1925 and the new order conflicted with the ALA 1919, which purported to render inconsistent future provisions ineffective.
• Ellen Street Estates Ltd contended that the Housing Acts acquisition provisions were invalid due to this conflict.

Issues

1. Whether the ALA 1919 could bind subsequent Parliaments by rendering later inconsistent statutes ineffective.
2. Whether a later Act, inconsistent with an earlier Act, prevails regardless of any non-derogation clause in the earlier statute.
3. Whether the doctrine of implied repeal applies when statutes conflict on the same subject matter, specifically compensation for compulsory purchase.

Decision

• The Court of Appeal dismissed Ellen Street Estates Ltd's appeal.
• The court held that Parliament cannot bind its successors and a later Act prevails when it conflicts with an earlier statute.
• Scrutton LJ and Maugham LJ reasoned that upholding the appellant’s argument would contravene parliamentary sovereignty by enabling a Parliament to restrict future legislative power.
• The court applied the doctrine of implied repeal, confirming the validity of the clearance order made under the Housing Act 1930.
• It was determined that any purported limitation in the ALA 1919 was ineffective to bind future Parliaments.

Legal Principles

• Parliament cannot bind its successors, either as to substance or legislative process.
• The doctrine of implied repeal operates so that a later statutory provision inconsistent with an earlier one overrules the earlier, even if the earlier Act attempts to limit future legislation.
• Legislative intent is determinative; subsequent legislation prevails if conflicting.
• Parliamentary sovereignty ensures each Parliament has full legislative power unencumbered by previous enactments.

Conclusion

Ellen Street Estates Ltd v Minister of Health [1934] 1 KB 590 (CA) affirmed that no Parliament can bind its successors, and the doctrine of implied repeal allows later statutes to override earlier, inconsistent legislation. The decision remains a foundational authority on parliamentary sovereignty in UK law.