Re Grosvenor Hotel, London

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date04 December 1963
Judgment citation (vLex)[1963] EWCA Civ J1204-1
CourtCourt of Appeal
Date04 December 1963

[1963] EWCA Civ J1204-1

In The Supreme Court of Judicature

Court of Appeal

From Mr Justice Cross


Lord Justice Harman

Lord Justice Donovan and

Lord Justice Russell

In the Matter of the Premises Known as the Grosvenor Hotel, Buckingham Palace Road and other Premises at or Near Victoria Station in the County of London
In the Matter of the Landlord and Tenanct Act, 1954

MR STANELY BRODIE (instructed by Messrs Ralph Freeman & Co.) appeared as Counsel for the Appellants, Gordon Hotels Ltd.

MR A.C. GOODALL (instructed by Mr M.H.B. Gilmour) appeared as Counsel for the Respondents, the British Railwlays Board.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SIR JOHN HOBSON, Q.C.), the Hon. J.R. CUMMING-BRUCE and MR BRYAN CLAUSON (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Minister of Transport.


This is an appeal from a decision of Mr Justice Gross embodied in a Judgment wnich he delivered on the 31st July last. It is an interlocutory Judgment in an originating summons between Gordon — Hotels Ltd. and what is now the British Railways Board. Gordon Hotels Ltd. have been for a number of years tenants of the Grosvenor Hotel which is in and around Victoria Station, and the common law tenancy or tenancies of that property would ordinarily run out at December of 1962. Having regard to the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1954, they did not so run out and the machinery of the Act came into force. The British Railways Board, which was then landlord of these properties, had given notice to the lessees that they were not willing to allow the tenancies to go on. Gordon Hotels Ltd., as they were entitled to, took out this originating summons for a new tenancy. The objection raised by the British Railways Board was that they intended to carry on a business of their own on the site — so I gather: I have not seen the document.


The matter came before the master at an early stage and he ordered affidavits in a brief form, which would no doubt lead to cross-examination later on, and made a general order for discovery. When discovery was made, the Crown, if I may say so, put its finger in the pie. There were various communications, it appears, between the Minister of Transport or officials of that Ministry and the former landlords, which the Crown did not desire should be disclosed, and accordingly when the affidavit of documents came to be made on behalf of the British Railways Board, the secretary to the Board, who made the affidavit, objected to certain disclosures and he used these terms? "The respondents object to produce the documents set forth in the second part of the first schedule hereto on the grounds that the documents listed in sub-paragraphs (a) to (f) inclusive in the said second part are by their nature privileged and that the documents listed in paragraph (g)therein cannot be disclosed without injury to the public interest". That is a curious way of claiming that kind of privilege, but there it is. When you look at (g) in that schedule you find these words: "Letters passing between the respondents and the Ministry of Transport and the Treasury Solicitor and memoranda made by the officers and servants of the respondents relating to discussions with officers of the Ministry of Transport and the Treasury Solicitor's department". So there are three parties involved, the respondents, the Ministry of Transport and the Treasury Solicitor. No attempt was made to classify or identify the memoranda or any of the letters except three. That claim was supported by letters which induced the secretary to make the affidavit in the form that he did. They are a letter from the solicitor to the respondents written to the Treasury Solicitor suggesting that certain letters ought to have privilege attached to them and the Treasury Soicitor's answer in which he says: "I am now...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Duncan v The Governor of Portlaoise Prison
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 23 January 1997
    ...[1992] 1 I.R. 277; [1992] I.L.R.M. 209. Berkley Administration Inc. v. McClelland (1990) F.S.R. 381. Re Grosvenor Hotel, London [1964] Ch. 464; [1963] 3 W.L.R. 955; [1964] 1 All E.R. 92. Jones v. Monte Video Gas Co. (1880) 5 Q.B.D. 556. Lonrho plc v. Fayed (No. 3) [1993] T.L.R. 347. Applica......
  • Special Minister of State v Quin
    • Australia
    • Federal Court
    • Invalid date
  • Oasis Investment II Master Fund Ltd and Others v Jardine Strategic Holdings Ltd
    • Bermuda
    • Supreme Court (Bermuda)
    • 24 November 2022
    ...( Bray, at p.211; Birmingham and Midland Omnibus v London and North Western Ry [1913] 3 K.B. 850 at 855; Re Grosvenor Hotel, London [1964] 1 Ch. 464 at 481; Lonrho Pic v Fayed (No. 3), The Times, 24 June 1993, CA, disproving a dictum to the contrary effect in Berkeley Administration Inc v ......
  • O'Leary and Others v Minister for Industry and Commerce and Others
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 4 October 1966
    ...A. C. 624. (5) [1931] A. C. 704. (1) [1942] A. C. 624. (2) [1942] Ir. Jur. Rep. 81. (1) [1926] I. R. 500. (2) [1959] I. R. 105. (3) [1964] Ch. 464. (4) [1964] 3 W. L. R. (5) [1931] A. C. 704. (6) [1942] A. C. 624. (7) 1956 S. C. 1. (8) [1965] 1 Q. B. 57. (9) [1965] 1 W. L. R. 261. (10) [195......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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