Attorney-General v De Keyser's Royal Hotel [1920]

Attorney-General v De Keyser's Royal Hotel Ltd [1920] UKHL 1 extensively examined the principles guiding the courts in determining whether a statute restricts prerogative power. This case established that the royal prerogative does not authorise the Crown to seize a subject's property for administrative purposes related to national defence without providing compensation. Moreover, it clarified that the prerogative power remains in abeyance when statutory law offers a legal basis for the action.

De Keyser's Royal Hotel Ltd, the owner of a hotel in Blackfriars, London, claimed compensation under the Defence Act 1842 for the occupation of its premises during World War I. The government, relying on prerogative power, argued that lesser compensation was payable. The dispute centred on whether the Crown had the authority to take possession without compensation, a claim contested by the hotel's owner.

Before the war, De Keyser's operated as a first-class hotel, mainly serving a continental clientele. However, by 1916, due to wartime losses in clientele, the hotel faced financial challenges. The company's petition for compensation presented a complex picture of financial difficulties and improvements. A receiver had managed the company since 1915, attempting to mitigate losses. Despite improvements, the government requisitioned the hotel in 1916.

The Court of Appeal, reversing the High Court decision, ruled in favour of De Keyser's Royal Hotel Ltd in 1919. On appeal to the House of Lords in 1920, the unanimous decision upheld the Court of Appeal's ruling, rejecting the government's reliance on prerogative power. The judgment affirmed that once a statute is enacted, prerogative powers are suspended, emphasising that the prerogative remains in abeyance for the duration of the statute's provisions.

The case's principles have been cited in subsequent judgments challenging the government's use of royal prerogative, including cases such as Laker Airways Ltd v Department of Trade [1977] and R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union [1995]. Most notably, the De Keyser's case has been referenced in contemporary cases such as R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland [2019], which dealt with the prerogative to prorogue Parliament. The decision remains a cornerstone in constitutional law, affirming the rights of individual citizens against excessive executive interference.