Responsible government in the Dominions: Responsible government in the Dominions

Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 1)

Bibliographic data

Multivolume work

Identifikator:: 1896933912

Document type:: Multivolume work

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Press

Year of publication:: 1912-

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Volume

Identifikator:: 1896934455

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-236504

Document type:: Volume

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Volume count:: Vol. 1

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Pr.

Year of publication:: 1912

Scope:: LI, 568 Seiten

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Chapter

Document type:: Multivolume work

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Part II. The executive Government

Collection:: Economics Books

144 THE EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT [pARrrT II and it would be strange if any system of law denied the Sovereign that privilege. Moreover, the royal prerogative is certainly the same everywhere, except where it has been lessened by appropriate legislation—the immunity is not by legislation—and therefore the prerogative to waive immunity from suit seems to be one which would everywhere be in force. Moreover, there is no case reported where the view that the prerogative does not exist in these Colonies has been established. In point of fact, in the case of Ceylon and the Mauritius cases are brought by usage, which the Privy Council has approved in the case of Ceylon, against the Colonial Government direct without a fiat of any kind, while in the case of the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony Acts were passed very soon after the organization of civil government to confer a right of suit much larger than the common-law right, as is usual in the Colonies, which mostly accept within limits responsibility for torts in connexion with railway and other such undertakings. An Act was passed in the Cape (No. 37 of 1888), and also in Natal (No. 14 of 1894) as soon as there was any demand, and those Acts deal also with torts, so that no argument can be drawn from the passing of Acts to the denial of a common-law right before the Acts were passed. The Transvaal and the Orange River Colony legislation, and the other Acts are consolidated as Act No. 1 of 1910 of the Union. In the case of Canada and the Commonwealth similar Acts have been passed, and that of Canada applies to cases arising in Quebec also. It appears clear that the Acts which are passed refer only to the Crown in its capacity as the Crown in the Colony.2 If the Crown is to be sued in its capacity as the Imperial drown then a fiat would in every case be necessary, and * Whether the prerogative would have applied to claims against these Governments without these Acts has not been determined in any case, but prima facie it would. There is also a Quebec Act regarding local petitions of right ; of. Reg. v. Demers, [1900] A. C. 103. ®t But in theory the King could grant a fiat for a trial in a Colonial court of such a case; cf. Robertson, op. cit., p. 381. The Cape and Natal rules of court forbade suing an Imperial officer without the sanction of the court for any debt due on public account. Cf. 3-8. C. 55; 21 S. C. 393.

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 1)

Multivolume work

Volume

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Volume

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation