By section 1 of the 1967 Act, the County Court had been given power to regulate the occupation of the property by either spouse. The man challenged an order made at the instance of the woman with whom he had been living as if she was his wife from the occupation of a house which he had a legal right to occupy or compelling him to allow her to enter into and remain in the house which he had and she had not a legal right to occupy. The House was asked whether that power included the power to grant an injunction excluding the husband from the property.
Held: A power to regulate an activity does not of itself imply a power to prohibit the activity.
Lord Pearson said: ‘There is authority in several different connections for the proposition that a power to regulate does not (unless the context so requires) include a power to prohibit.’ and . . ‘Thus, the word `regulating’ in itself is not apt to include a power to prohibit. There is no evident reason why the draftsman should not have added the words `or prohibiting’ if he meant to include a power to prohibit. If a temporary prohibition were required, the duration could have been limited under subsection (4). Alternatively the words `or suspending’ might have been added.’
Judges:
Lord Pearson
Citations:
[1973] AC 254
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Boddington v British Transport Police HL 2-Apr-1998
The defendant had been convicted, under regulations made under the Act, of smoking in a railway carriage. He sought to challenge the validity of the regulations themselves. He wanted to argue that the power to ban smoking on carriages did not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Family
Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.187077
