Burmah Oil Co (Burma Trading) Ltd v Lord Advocate [1964] UKHL 6; [1965] AC 75
Royal prerogative, wartime destruction of private property and compensation.
Facts
During the Japanese invasion of Burma in 1942, British forces destroyed oil installations and other property belonging to Burmah Oil and associated companies. The destruction followed government instructions intended to deny the enemy resources useful to its wider war effort.
The companies brought proceedings against the Lord Advocate, representing the Crown, seeking compensation. Both sides accepted that the destruction was lawful. At this stage the court had to assume that the companies could prove their pleaded facts and that no statute authorised the demolitions or regulated compensation. The Crown’s reliance on legislation concerning Burma had not yet been investigated.
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
The Lord Ordinary allowed the actions to proceed to evidence, but the First Division of the Court of Session dismissed them as legally irrelevant. The companies appealed to the House of Lords.
Issue
Did lawful destruction of private property under the Crown’s wartime prerogative carry a legal right to compensation? If so, did the companies’ alleged losses fall within the exception for battle damage?
The Crown also cross-appealed on a separate defence under the Public Authorities Protection Act 1893.
Decision
By a majority of three to two, the House allowed the companies’ appeals. Lord Reid, Lord Pearce and Lord Upjohn held that the pleaded case supported a right to compensation. Viscount Radcliffe and Lord Hodson dissented. The House restored the Lord Ordinary’s order and remitted the cases for evidence to be heard before final determination.
The Crown’s cross-appeals concerning the 1893 Act were dismissed. The House did not assess compensation or award the full value of the destroyed installations.
Reasoning
Authority to act and liability to compensate were separate questions
The majority distinguished the Crown’s power to take necessary wartime measures from a supposed power to impose the resulting loss on an individual owner without compensation. The prerogative could support action before the last moment of imminent attack; it was not confined to what a private citizen might do in an immediate emergency.
Historical practice, legislation and legal authorities supported compensation where property was taken for the public good. Destroying property to deny its use to the enemy was not, for this purpose, fundamentally different from taking it for use. Lawfulness therefore did not itself answer the compensation claim.
The exception for battle damage
The majority accepted an exception for damage arising in fighting operations. This included deliberate as well as accidental destruction: the distinction was not simply whether someone had intended the damage.
On the companies’ pleaded facts, however, the oil installations were destroyed for the broader strategic purpose of denying industrial resources to the enemy. The destruction was not alleged to have been necessary to hamper the immediate advance or protect the withdrawing forces in battle. The enemy’s approach determined the timing, but that did not by itself turn the loss into uncompensated battle damage.
The dissent and the limits of the ruling
Viscount Radcliffe and Lord Hodson did not accept that the common law established the claimed enforceable right to compensation. They considered provision for war losses a matter for government and Parliament, and rejected the proposed distinction as a sufficient basis for the companies’ claims.
Even for the majority, a right to compensation did not necessarily mean full replacement cost or peacetime value. The possibility that the property would otherwise have fallen into enemy hands, and its prospects of surviving and returning to the owners, could affect its value. Those questions remained open.
Later legislation
Parliament subsequently enacted the War Damage Act 1965. It retrospectively removed common-law rights to compensation for property damage caused by lawful Crown acts during, or in contemplation of, war. This was a later statutory response, separate from the House’s decision in 1964.
