To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
Languages
Recent
Show all languages
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Burmah Oil Co Ltd v Lord Advocate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Burmah Oil Company Ltd v Lord Advocate
CourtHouse of Lords
Decided21 April 1964
Citation(s)
  • [1965] AC 75
  • [1964] 2 WLR 1231
  • [1964] 2 All ER 348
  • 1964 SC (HL) 117
  • 1964 SLT 218
  • [1964] 4 WLUK 46
  • (1964) 108 SJ 401
Transcript(s)House of Lords judgment
Case history
Appealed fromOuter House of the Court of Session
Subsequent action(s)War Damage Act 1965
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting
  • Lord Reid
  • Viscount Radcliffe
  • Lord Hodson
  • Lord Pearce
  • Lord Upjohn
Keywords

Burmah Oil Company Ltd v Lord Advocate [1965] AC 75, was a court case, raised in Scotland, and decided ultimately in the House of Lords. The case is an important decision in British constitutional law and had unusual legal repercussions at the time.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/3
    Views:
    2 433
    4 856
    2 222
  • Hughes v. Lord Advocate Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
  • What limits the power of the State? | Entick v Carrington | Legal Landmarks
  • Vauxhall estates v Liverpool corporation [1932]

Transcription

Facts

This case concerned the destruction of oil fields in Burma belonging to the Burmah Oil Company by British forces during the Japanese invasion of Burma in 1942. The destruction was ordered in order to prevent the installations from falling into the hands of the advancing Imperial Japanese Army. Burmah Oil brought an action against the UK government, represented by the Lord Advocate.

In the Outer House of the Court of Session, Lord Kilbrandon found in favour of Burmah Oil. The Crown appealed, and the First Division of the Inner House of the Court of Session unanimously reversed the decision below. Burmah Oil then appealed to the House of Lords.

Judgment

The House of Lords held by a 3–2 majority that although the damage was lawful, it was the equivalent of requisitioning the property. Any act of requisition was done for the good of the public, at the expense of the individual proprietor, and for that reason, the proprietor should be compensated from public funds. Viscount Radcliffe and Lord Hodson dissented.

Significance

In the end, the result was frustrated by the passing of a retroactive Act of Parliament, the War Damage Act 1965, which retroactively exempts the Crown from liability in respect of damage to, or destruction of, property caused by acts lawfully done by the Crown during, or in contemplation of the outbreak of, a war in which it is engaged.

See also

References

This page was last edited on 7 February 2024, at 00:47
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.