| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Grape Bay Ltd v A-G of Bermuda ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Grape Bay Ltd v A-G of Bermuda
''Grape Bay Ltd v Attorney-General of Bermuda'' () (UKPC 43 ) is a case concerning compulsory purchase by the Privy Council, that is important for English land law. It held that an Act passed by the Bermuda legislature to prevent McDonalds restaurants opening did not amount to a "regulatory taking" or an unconstitutional acquisition of property without compensation. In doing so, Lord Hoffmann distinguished infringement of "liberty" and an infringement of "property" in a manner similar to Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld's classic analysis.〔WN Hohfeld 'Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning' (1917) (26(8) Yale Law Journal 710 )〕
==Facts==
McDonalds attempted to open a new branch in Bermuda, under the company name of Grape Bay Ltd. Residents objected, and a Bill was brought in the lower house to prohibit new foreign restaurants. It was defeated in the Senate, but a second reading came. McDonalds was keen to press ahead, and prepared to challenge it as being unconstitutional. It passed as the Governor signed the Prohibited Restaurant Act 1997 stopping any non-Bermudan restaurant that was not already established from being set up. McDonalds made a challenge under articles 1(c) and 13 of the Bermudan Constitution, alleging that it had been deprived of property without compensation. It contended that although it owned no land in Bermuda yet, the various contracts and options it had entered into amounted to a "chose in action" that was being displaced by the Act. The general right of property in article 13 is not taken, but the more general reference in article 1(c) to ‘protection for the privacy of his home and other property and from deprivation of property without compensation’ was enough to cover their position.
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「Grape Bay Ltd v A-G of Bermuda」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|