Chester v Bateson: 1920

A Regulation brought in under the 1914 Act prohibited the bringing of possession proceedings against a munitions worker without the consent of the Minister.
Held: The prohibition was unlawful. It was a grave invasion of the rights of the subjects and this could not be achieved by a departmental order. Avory J said: ‘In my opinion there is not to be found in the statute anything to authorize or justify a regulation having that result; and nothing less than express words in the statute taking away the right of the King’s subjects of access to the Courts of justice would authorize or justify it.’
Darling J, Avory J
[1920] 1 KB 829
Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act 1914
England and Wales
Citing:
ApprovedRex (at the prosecution of Arthur Zadig) v Halliday HL 1-May-1917
The applicant was German born but a naturalised Englishman who complained of having been interned by a regulation made under the 1914 Act. He said that the regulation was ultra vires.
Held: The appeal failed (Lord Shaw dissenting). The House . .
CitedIn Re Boaler CA 1915
The court was asked whether the 1896 Act which permitted a court to make an order that a person could not institute proceedings without the leave of the court, applied to the institution of criminal proceedings.
Held: It did not. Scrutton J . .

Cited by:
CitedA, K, M, Q and G v HM Treasury Admn 24-Apr-2008
The applicants were suspected of terrorist associations. Their bank accounts and similar had been frozen. They challenged the Order in Council under which the orders had been made without an opportunity for parliamentary challenge or approval.
CitedHM Treasury v Ahmed and Others SC 27-Jan-2010
The claimants objected to orders made freezing their assets under the 2006 Order, after being included in the Consolidated List of suspected members of terrorist organisations.
Held: The orders could not stand. Such orders were made by the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 May 2021; Ref: scu.267160