Vauxhall Estates Ltd v Liverpool Corp
An earlier statute cannot prevent a later inconsistent statute from taking effect.
Facts
Vauxhall Estates' land was compulsorily acquired by Liverpool Corporation. As in Ellen Street Estates, the question was whether compensation should be assessed under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act 1919 or under the later and less generous Housing Act 1925, given section 7(1) of the 1919 Act, which purported to give the 1919 Act priority over inconsistent provisions in other Acts.
Legal principle
The Divisional Court held that the 1925 Act applied, so far as it was inconsistent with the 1919 Act. Avory J said that no Act of Parliament can effectively provide that no future Act shall interfere with its provisions. The 1919 Act could not prevent the later Act from impliedly repealing it, because the later expression of Parliament's will prevails. The case was followed by the Court of Appeal in Ellen Street Estates v Minister of Health.
Related cases on parliamentary sovereignty
- British Coal Corp v The King [1935] AC 500
- Cheney v Conn [1968] 1 WLR 242
- Edinburgh and Dalkeith Railway Co v Wauchope (1842) 8 Cl & F 710
- Ellen Street Estates Ltd v Minister of Health [1934] 1 KB 590
- Lee v Bude and Torrington Junction Railway Co (1871) LR 6 CP 576
- MacCormick v Lord Advocate 1953 SC 396
- Madzimbamuto v Lardner-Burke [1969] 1 AC 645
- Manuel v Attorney General [1983] Ch 77
Studying public law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
