Marriott v Minister of Health: CA 1936

Nottingham Corporation on June 4th 1930, resolved that a certain area should be a clearance area, and on the same day made a compulsory purchase order in respect or part thereof. On that part of the area there were 39 houses of which 27 were the property of the applicant. On July 21st the applicant instructed a builder to demolish all the 27 houses, and the demolition work began on July 26th and was completed before October the 2nd. Notice of the order was served on the applicant on July 30th, and he lost his objection on August 15th. On October 2nd the local enquiry began at which the fact of demolition was proved. On January 16th 1935, the minister confirmed the order. The applicant questioned the validity of the order and applied under the Housing Act 1930 section 11 to have it quashed.
Held: Before confirming an order of the minister ought to have considered matters as they were at the time of the local inquiry, and, as there was at that time no subject matter on which the act could have operated, the Minister ought not to have confirmed the order either with or without modification.
The mere fact that a tribunal has made a mistake of law, even as to the proper construction of a statute, does not necessarily constitute a constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction
Greer LJ
[1937] 1 KB 128, [1936] 2 All ER 865, (1936) 1 LJKB 149, (1936) 155 LT 94, (1936) 100 JP 432, (1936) 52 TLR 643, (1936) 80 Sol Jo 533, (1936) 34 LGR 401
England and Wales
Appeal from (Affirmed)Marriott v Minister of Health 1936
. .

Cited by:
CitedKhanum v Mid Glamorgan Area Health Authority EAT 1979
In a domestic tribunal such as that a disciplinary hearing, all that is required is that the three basic requirements of natural justice be fulfilled; namely (1) that the person should know the nature of the accusation against him or her; (2) that . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 September 2021; Ref: scu.518491