S.2 of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act 1919 provided for the assessment of compensation in respect of land acquired compulsorily for public purposes according to certain rules. Then by s.7(1): ‘The provisions of the Act or order by which the land is authorised to be acquired, or of any Act incorporated therewith, shall, in relation to the matters dealt with in this Act, have effect subject to this Act, and so far as inconsistent with this Act those provisions shall cease to have or shall not have effect . . ‘ S.46 of the Housing Act 1925 provided for the assessment of compensation for land acquired compulsorily under an improvement or reconstruction scheme made under that Act in a manner which was at variance from that prescribed by the Act of 1919.
Held: One Parliament cannot deny or qualify the power of itself or of a later Parliament to exercise that power.
Avory J (referring to dicta in Vauhall Estates): ‘That is absolutely contrary to the constitutional position that Parliament can alter an Act previously passed, and it can do so by repealing in terms the previous Act . . and it can do it also in another way – namely, by enacting a provision which is clearly inconsistent with the previous Act.’
Maugham LJ: ‘The Legislature cannot, according to our constitution, bind itself as to the form of subsequent legislation, and it is impossible for Parliament to enact that in a subsequent statute dealing with the same subject-matter there can be no implied repeal. If in a subsequent Act Parliament chooses to make it plain that the earlier statute is being to some extent repealed, effect must be given to that intention just because it is the will of the Legislature.’
Judges:
Scrutton LJ, Maugham LJ
Citations:
[1934] 1 KB 590, [1934] All ER Rep 385
Statutes:
Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act 1919 2, Housing Act 1925 46
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Considered – Vauxhall Estates Ltd v Liverpool Corporation KBD 1932
The court looked at the question of the implied repeal of legislation.
Avory J said: ‘I should certainly hold . . that no Act of Parliament can effectively provide that no future Act shall interfere with its provisions . . [I]f they [the two . .
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.
Administrative, Constitutional
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241355