Buck v Attorney General: ChD 1965

The claimant challenged the validity of an order in council. The order used general enabling words, not expressly stating which power had been used for their creation.
Held: The result of those general enabling words was that the order was made under a power conferred by the British Settlements Act 1887 even though that order did not expressly refer to that power. As a result the order was valid.


Wilberforce J


[1965] Ch 246


British Settlements Act 1887


England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromBuck v Attorney General CA 2-Jan-1965
By an action for declaratory relief, a challenge was offered to the validity of the Order in Council giving effect to the 1961 Act.
Held: The appeal failed. As a matter of international comity an English court should not grant declarations . .
CitedVibixa Ltd, Polestar Jowetts Ltd v Komori UK Ltd and Another, Spectral Technology Ltd CA 9-May-2006
The claimants sought damages for damage to property alleging breach of statutory duty. The defendant said that the regulations were made under European not English law, and that the Secretary of State did not have power to make regulations under the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.242271