R v Powell

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Year1841
Date1841
CourtCourt of the Queen's Bench
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
9 cases
  • M v Home Office
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 27 July 1993
    ...Her Majesty's ships. 72The prerogative remedies could not be obtained against the Crown directly as was explained by Lord Denman C.J. in Reg. v. Powell (1841) 1 Q.B. 352: "… both because there would be an incongruity in the Queen commanding herself to do an act, and also because the disobe......
  • M v Home Office
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 27 July 1993
    ...Her Majesty's ships. 72The prerogative remedies could not be obtained against the Crown directly as was explained by Lord Denman C.J. in Reg. v. Powell (1841) 1 Q.B. 352: "… both because there would be an incongruity in the Queen commanding herself to do an act, and also because the disobe......
  • Rural Transit Association Ltd v Jamaica Urban Transit Company Ltd et Al
    • Jamaica
    • Supreme Court (Jamaica)
    • 17 June 2016
    ...Affidavit of Kirk Finnikin filed 19 th November, 2014 13 [2013] JMFC Full Crt 4 , at paras 90–160 14 [2007] UKPC 65 15 Counsel relied on R v Powell (1841) 1 Q.B. 352 which was affirmed in M v Home Office [1994] 1 A.C. 377 and section 16 of the Crown Proceedings Act. 16 Rural Transit Associa......
  • Suzette Curtello v The University of the West Indies
    • Jamaica
    • Court of Appeal (Jamaica)
    • 17 March 2023
    ...the fact that attachment or some other order for contempt is the possible consequence of a breach of a mandatory order. 70 In the case of R v Powell (1841) 1 QB 352, 361, Lord Denman CJ made the following observation: “That there can be no mandamus to the Sovereign there can be no doubt, b......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Of Kings and Officers — The Judicial Development of Public Law
    • United Kingdom
    • Federal Law Review No. 33-2, June 2005
    • 1 June 2005
    ...Crown (3rd ed, 2000) 31. 147 Thomas v R (1874) LR 10 QB 44; Commonwealth v Northern Land Council (1991) 103 ALR 267, 288. 148 R v Powell (1841) 1 QB 352; 113 ER 1166. As a practical matter prohibition or certiorari were also not available against the King, but this followed from the limited......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT