In Lord Advocate v Dumbarton District Council [1989] 3 WLR 1346, the Ministry of Defence (MOD) wanted to make improvements to the perimeter fence of the Faslane nuclear submarine base and consequently cordoned off a stretch of road adjacent to the base. Under statute, however, this could not be done without the permission of the Strathclyde Regional Council (the roads authority) and the Dumbarton District Council (the planning authority). The Ministry of Defence had failed to obtain the permission of either of these bodies and they therefore issued notices ordering the MOD to remove the cordon and restore the road to its former condition. The MOD sought judicial review of the notices, arguing that they were inapplicable to and unenforceable against the Crown. In Scotland, the First Division of the Inner House of the Court of Session held that the Crown was bound by the statutes in question and rejected the application for judicial review. This court, refusing to apply the strict presumption of immunity (consistent with earlier Scottish authorities), reasoned that the presumption would only apply where pre-existing rights and interests of the Crown would be prejudiced by the application of statute. This was not the situation here, as it was accepted by both sides that the Crown had no right to occupy and/or obstruct the land adjoining the base. The House of Lords rejected this approach and, re-emphasising and applying the strict principle of immunity, held that there was no distinction between Crown action taken within its rights and that taken outside any right, mainly because such a distinction would require a difficult and 'inconvenient' examination of the precise nature of the Crown's rights at the time when the statute in question was passed. The Crown was either bound generally or not at all. The decision of the Scottish court was therefore overturned.