References: [1863] EngR 424, (1863) 14 CB NS 180, (1863) 143 ER 414
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Erie CJ, Willes J, Byles J
Where a land-owner owner had failed to give proper notice to the Board, the Board had, under the 1855 Act, power to demolish any building he had erected and recover the cost from him. The plaintiff said that the Board had used that power without giving the owner an opportunity of being heard. The Board maintained that their discretion to order demolition was not a judicial discretion and that any appeal should have been to the Metropolitan Board of Works.
Held: The claim succeeded. Erie CJ said that the power was subject to a qualification repeatedly recognised that no man is to be deprived of his property without his having an opportunity of being heard. This rule had been applied to: ‘many exercises of power which in common understanding would not be at all a more judicial proceeding than would be the act of the district board in ordering a house to be pulled down.’
Willes J said that the rule was ‘of universal application and founded upon the plainest principles of justice.’ and ‘I apprehend that a tribunal which is by law invested with power to affect the property of one Her Majesty’s subjects is bound to give such subject an opportunity of being heard before it proceeds, and that rule is of universal application an founded upon the plainest principles of justice.’
Byles J said that ‘although there are no positive words in a statute requiring that the party shall be heard yet the justice of the common law will supply the omission of the legislature.’
Statutes: Metropolis Local Management Act 1855
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Bank Mellat -v- HM Treasury QBD (Bailii, [2010] EWHC 1332 (QB), WLRD, [2010] WLR (D) 148)
The respondent had made an order under the Regulations restricting all persons from dealing with the the claimant bank. The bank applied to have the order set aside. Though the defendant originally believed that the Iranian government owned 80% of . . - Cited – Lumba (WL) -v- Secretary of State for The Home Department SC (Bailii, [2011] UKSC 12, Bailii Summary, SC, UKSC 2010/0062, UKSC 2010/0063, SC Summary)
The claimants had been detained under the 1971 Act, after completing sentences of imprisonment pending their return to their home countries under deportations recommended by the judges at trial, or chosen by the respondent. They challenged as . . - Cited – Bank Mellat -v- Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2) SC (Bailii Summary, WLRD, Bailii, [2013] UKSC 39, [2013] Lloyd’s Rep FC 580, [2013] 3 WLR 179, [2013] HRLR 30, [2013] 4 All ER 533, [2013] WLR(D) 244, WLRD, UKSC 2011/0040, SC Sumary, SC)
The bank challenged measures taken by HM Treasury to restrict access to the United Kingdom’s financial markets by a major Iranian commercial bank, Bank Mellat, on the account of its alleged connection with Iran’s nuclear weapons and ballistic . . - Cited – Osborn -v- The Parole Board SC (Bailii, [2013] UKSC 61, [2013] 3 WLR 1020, [2014] HRLR 1, [2013] WLR(D) 374, [2014] 1 All ER 369, Bailii Summary, WLRD, UKSC 2011/0147, SC Summary, SC)
Three prisoners raised questions as to the circumstances in which the Parole Board is required to hold an oral hearing before making an adverse decision. One of the appeals (Osborn) concerned a determinate sentence prisoner who was released on . .