The House considered the effect on the Irish Free State of a liability undertaken by the United Kingdom Government before the formation of the Irish Free State.
Held: No suit can be maintained against the Crown in right of Great Britain or of a dominion or colony in respect of a liability unless it is to be satisfied out of the British exchequer or the treasury of that dominion or colony. The question whether a suit against the Crown should be brought against it in right of one Dominion, Possession, or jurisdiction rather than another depends upon the exchequer or treasury out of which the liability or claim put in suit would be discharged or satisfied. The responsibility of producing the fund out of which the obligation can be met, depends upon provision being made by the Parliaments of the States, if they choose-and only if they choose-so to provide.
Judges:
Viscount Haldane, Lord Phillimore
Citations:
[1925] AC 754
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Manuel and Others v Attorney-General; Noltcho and Others v Attorney-General ChD 7-May-1982
The plaintiffs were Indian Chiefs from Canada. They complained that the 1982 Act which granted independence to Canada, had been passed without their consent, which they said was required. They feared the loss of rights embedded by historical . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Constitutional
Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.241377
