Competing ‘Clear and Unambiguous’ Constructions: Darwall v Dartmoor National Park Authority [2023] EWCA Civ 927 and the Interpretation of Private Acts of Parliament

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

1 Sir Geoffrey Vos MR, Lord Justice Underhill and Lord Justice Newey.

2 [2023] EWHC 35 (Ch), [2023] Ch 141.

3 For further information, see <https://www.landmarkchambers.co.uk/news-and-cases/supreme-court-gives-permission-to-appeal-in-darwall-v-dartmoor-national-park-authority> accessed 31 January 2024.

4 Diggory Bailey and Luke Norbury, Bennion, Bailey and Norbury on Statutory Interpretation, 8th edn (London: Lexis Nexis Butterworths, 2020).

5 London and North-Western Rly Co v Evans [1893] 1 Ch 16, 27; Yarmouth Corpn v Simmons (1878) 10 Ch D 518, 527.

6 See e.g. Brett MR in A-G v Horner (1884) 14 QBD 245, 257: ‘It is a proper rule of construction not to construe an Act of Parliament as interfering with or injuring persons’ rights without compensation unless one is obliged so to construe it.’

7 Skeleton argument para 56 <https://www.oss.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/26-skeleton-final.pdf> accessed 31 January 2024.

8 MK Heatley, ‘The continued use of Private Acts of Parliament in the United Kingdom’, UK Const L Blog (4 October 2021) <https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/> accessed 31 January 2024.

9 For an application of the 1967 Act see R (Muir) v Wandsworth LBC [2017] EWHC 1947 (Admin) (upheld on appeal [2018] 4 All ER 422).

10 Per the Master of the Rolls at [36].

11 (1981) 79 LGR 185.