Do you want BuboFlash to help you learning these things? Or do you want to add or correct something? Click here to log in or create user.


  • Presentation
  • Question
  • Answer

Tags
#constitution #law #public
Question
The Crown is not bound by statute except by express words or necessary implication. In [case], the Privy Council reaffirmed and elaborated upon this principle. Lord du Parcq stated as follows:

'If ... it is manifest from the very terms of the statute, that it was the intention of the legislature that the Crown should be bound, then the result is the same as if the Crown had been expressly named. It must then be inferred that the Crown, by assenting to the law, agreed to be bound by its provisions.'

Emphasising the strictness of the test, Lord du Parcq further stated that the agreement of the Crown to be bound could be inferred where it was apparent from the terms of the statute that 'its beneficent purpose must be wholly frustrated unless the Crown were bound'.
Answer
Province of Bombay v Municipal Corporation of the City Bombay [1947] AC 58

Tags
#constitution #law #public
Question
The Crown is not bound by statute except by express words or necessary implication. In [case], the Privy Council reaffirmed and elaborated upon this principle. Lord du Parcq stated as follows:

'If ... it is manifest from the very terms of the statute, that it was the intention of the legislature that the Crown should be bound, then the result is the same as if the Crown had been expressly named. It must then be inferred that the Crown, by assenting to the law, agreed to be bound by its provisions.'

Emphasising the strictness of the test, Lord du Parcq further stated that the agreement of the Crown to be bound could be inferred where it was apparent from the terms of the statute that 'its beneficent purpose must be wholly frustrated unless the Crown were bound'.
Answer
?

Tags
#constitution #law #public
Question
The Crown is not bound by statute except by express words or necessary implication. In [case], the Privy Council reaffirmed and elaborated upon this principle. Lord du Parcq stated as follows:

'If ... it is manifest from the very terms of the statute, that it was the intention of the legislature that the Crown should be bound, then the result is the same as if the Crown had been expressly named. It must then be inferred that the Crown, by assenting to the law, agreed to be bound by its provisions.'

Emphasising the strictness of the test, Lord du Parcq further stated that the agreement of the Crown to be bound could be inferred where it was apparent from the terms of the statute that 'its beneficent purpose must be wholly frustrated unless the Crown were bound'.
Answer
Province of Bombay v Municipal Corporation of the City Bombay [1947] AC 58
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The Crown is not bound by statute except by express words or necessary implication. In Province of Bombay v Municipal Corporation of the City Bombay [1947] AC 58, the Privy Council reaffirmed and elaborated upon this principle. Lord du Parcq stated as follows: 'If ... it is manifest from the very terms of the statute, that it was t

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Summary

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Details

No repetitions

Discussion

Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.