British Coal Corporation and others v R [1935] AC 500
Canada; prerogative; former colonial legislatures
(250 words)
Facts
The British Coal Corporation, together with four other companies involved in the import of coal, were convicted of unduly restraining the coal industry. Their appeals from the conviction were rejected by the King’s Bench (Appeal Side) of the Province of Quebec.
Issues
The companies petitioned for special leave to appeal from their convictions to His Majesty in Council. It was argued by the Crown, objecting the petition, that criminal cases from any Canadian court could not be appealed to His Majesty in Council. The Court had to decide whether the companies were legally entitled have their criminal appeal heard by His Majesty in Council, despite the fact that their case originated in a Canadian court.
Decision/Outcome
The Court found in favour of the Crown. Prior to the adoption of the Statute of Westminster 1931, Canadian legislation could become void if it was found to be in conflict with an Act of the Imperial Parliament; colonial legislatures were also subject to other limitations. However, the 1931 Act introduced changes to the competence of colonial (thus, also Canadian) legislature. The right to appeal to His Majesty in Council is a prerogative by its nature and, as such, it can only be qualified expressly or by necessary intendment. Such a necessary intendment could be ascertained from the British North America Act 1867, namely s.91, which empowered the Canadian Legislature to prohibit appeals to His Majesty in Council in criminal matters. In addition, Canadian legislation expressly and precisely prohibits appeal of this nature.
Updated 19 March 2026
This article discusses the Privy Council decision in British Coal Corporation and others v R [1935] AC 500, a historical constitutional law case concerning the competence of the Canadian legislature to abolish criminal appeals to His Majesty in Council. The case summary is broadly accurate as a statement of the 1935 decision and its reasoning. Readers should be aware of the following context: the British North America Act 1867 has since been renamed the Constitution Act 1867 under the Canada Act 1982, though references to it by its original name in the context of the 1935 judgment remain historically correct. The Statute of Westminster 1931 remains in force in the UK (as amended) and the article’s brief description of its effect on colonial legislative competence is accurate in outline. The case retains its value as an authority on the prerogative nature of the right of appeal to the Privy Council and the conditions under which it may be abrogated by statute, principles which remain relevant to constitutional law scholarship. No subsequent UK legislation or case law has undermined the core legal propositions described. The article is suitable for its purpose as a case summary, with the caveat that students should use the modern name of the Constitution Act 1867 when writing about Canadian constitutional law in a contemporary context.
