Bowles v Bank of England [1913] 1 Ch 57
Constitution; royal prerogative; taxation
(299 words)
Facts
Mr Bowles purchased a high number of Irish Land Stock which was transferred to his name in Bank of England books. The Committee of the House of Commons for Ways and Means adopted a resolution assenting to the imposition of income tax on for the following tax year. The dividends on the stock were payable twice a year. Mr Bowles sued the Bank of England.
Issues
Mr Bowles claimed an injunction to restrict the defendants from deducting any sum as income tax from the dividend payable to the claimant. Bowles argued that the Bank of England was not lawfully entitled to deduct any money by way of an income tax as such tax was not imposed by an Act of Parliament. The Bank, in contrast, intended to follow the tax imposed by the resolution of the Committee for Ways and Means. The Court had to determine whether a Committee resolution could create a legally binding obligation – i.e. whether a resolution could authorise the imposition of an income tax despite the fact that such tax was not approved by Parliament.
Decision/Outcome
It was held that the Bank of England was not entitled to deduct any sums from Mr Bowles’s dividend. A resolution by the Committee of the House of Commons for Ways and Means could not in itself authorise the Crown to levy taxes, without such having first been approved by Parliament in a proper piece of legislation. The Court even referred to the Bill of Rights 1689, according to which taxes cannot be imposed by pretense of prerogative without parliamentary approval. The Court added that even though the Bill of Rights 1689 had not been relied upon for a long time, it still remains in force, and the custom of avoiding it could not displace its validity.
Updated 19 March 2026
This article accurately summarises the decision in Bowles v Bank of England [1913] 1 Ch 57. The core constitutional principle established by the case — that taxation requires statutory authority and cannot be imposed by a mere resolution of the House of Commons — remains good law. Parliament responded to the decision by enacting the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1913, which gave temporary statutory force to Budget resolutions, allowing tax to be collected in the period before the annual Finance Act received Royal Assent. That Act was later replaced and updated by the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968, which remains in force (as amended). The Bill of Rights 1689, relied upon by the court, also remains in force. Readers should be aware that the 1913 and 1968 Acts represent Parliament’s direct legislative response to the gap in the law exposed by this case, and that context is absent from the article but is important for a full understanding of the case’s practical significance.
