Attorney-General (On Behalf of his Majesty) v. De Keyser's Royal Hotel, Ltd

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant (the Crown) took possession of a large hotel in The City in May 1916 for administrative purposes connected with wartime aviation. Possession was asserted under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and the hotel’s receiver (acting for the Respondent company) protested, insisting on a statutory right to compensation. When negotiations failed, the Respondent filed a petition of right seeking (1) a declaration that it was entitled to rent during Crown occupation and (2) compensation under the Defence Act 1842. A first-instance judge dismissed the petition. The Court of Appeal reversed, declaring a statutory entitlement to compensation. The Crown appealed to the final appellate court, which delivered the present opinion.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Royal Prerogative permits the Crown, in wartime, to requisition land or buildings for military purposes without paying compensation.
2. Whether the Defence of the Realm legislation of 1914-1916 displaced or modified the compensation regime contained in the Defence Act 1842.
3. Whether a petition of right is the appropriate procedural vehicle for enforcing any compensation obligation arising from lawful requisition.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Crown’s prerogative power of defence allows temporary occupation of private property without any legal obligation to compensate; any payment is purely ex gratia.
• The Defence of the Realm (Consolidation) Act 1914 and regulations “suspended” all restrictions found in the Defence Act 1842, including any obligation to pay compensation.
• Even if compensation were payable, the Respondent’s sole remedy is to apply to the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission, whose payments are discretionary.

Respondent's Arguments

• Statutory schemes dating from 1708 onward, culminating in the Defence Act 1842, confer a right to compensation whenever the Crown acquires possession or use of land.
• The 1914 Act authorised suspension only of procedural restrictions; the duty to pay is not a “restriction” and therefore survives.
• Once Parliament legislated in the same field, the prerogative is in abeyance; the Crown must act under, and comply with, the statute.
• A petition of right lies to enforce a statutory debt owed by the Crown.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Multiple judges delivered concurring opinions. Their common reasoning may be summarised as follows:

• Characterisation of the Taking. The letters commanding possession expressly invoked the Defence of the Realm Regulations; the Crown therefore acted under statutory, not pure prerogative, authority.
• Scope of the Prerogative. Historical materials show no instance where the Crown took land in peacetime or wartime without compensation when statutes covered the field. Even if a prerogative once existed, it is “in abeyance” where Parliament has legislated comprehensively.
• Interaction of the 1842 and 1914 Acts. Section 1(2) of the 1914 Act empowers regulations to suspend “restrictions on the acquisition or user of land.” The duty to compensate is not a restriction on acquisition; it is a consequence of it. Hence that duty remains intact.
• Regulation 2 Analysis. Regulation 2 authorises immediate possession but must be read with the 1842 Act. It removes procedural formalities (e.g., notice periods) but does not extinguish the obligation to pay.
• Constitutional Principle. Statutes are not to be construed as taking property without payment unless Parliament has used unmistakable language. No such language appears here.
• Procedure. A petition of right is the correct mechanism to enforce a statutory money claim against the Crown when the underlying act (the requisition) was itself lawful.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED. The final court affirmed the Court of Appeal: the Respondent is entitled as of right to compensation under the Defence Act 1842; the Crown cannot rely on prerogative powers to avoid payment; and any purported ex gratia offer is legally irrelevant.

Implications: The ruling confirms that, where Parliament has legislated for wartime acquisition of property, the Crown must comply with statutory conditions, including compensation. The decision limits future reliance on prerogative powers when overlapping statutory schemes exist, reinforcing parliamentary supremacy and providing clarity for property owners affected by emergency requisitions.