Carltona Ltd v Commissioners of Works [1943] ER 560
Country:
United Kingdom
Reviewed By Oxbridge Law Team
Updated 2024-01-04 07:14:07 UTC
A requisition order was challenged on the grounds that a civil servant had ordered it and the minister hadn’t considered the order.
The court dismissed this challenge since government couldn’t work unless the civil servants were able to take decisions on a minister’s behalf.
The minister himself, it was stated, is still responsible for the decision and is accountable to parliament for it (despite not issuing it personally)
Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch Similar cases
Carltona v Commissioners of Works
The commissioners were given powers under wartime regulations to requisition property. This was done to Defendant by an order signed by civil servant with the rank of Assistant Secretary, who was wo...
Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for civil Service
Civil servants at Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) were barred from joining unions by an order of the minister, exercised under the royal prerogative to sack or change the terms of emplo...
CCSU v Minister for the Civil Service
The government's decision to prohibit trade union membership at GCHQ was invalid due to a lack of prior consultation with the affected parties. (High Court) If the exercise of prerogative power impac...
M v Home Office
To ensure compliance with the law by all individuals and entities, the courts possess authoritative measures, which they can use during contempt of court proceedings. Claiming that there is no author...
R. (Abbasi) v Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary
Plaintiff was not in the UK jurisdiction (being held at Gitmo) but sought judicial review of the government’s decision not to exercise its power to make diplomatic representations on his behalf. CA h...
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.