| BBC v Johns | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Court of Appeal of England and Wales |
| Full case name | The British Broadcasting Corporation v F.D. Johns (HM Inspector of Taxes) |
| Decided | March 5, 1964 (1964-03-05) |
| Citations | BBC v Johns [1964] EWCA Civ 2, [1964] 1 All ER 923, 41 TC 471 (5 March 1964), Court of Appeal (England and Wales) |
| Case history | |
| Appealed from | Muhammad Shamyl Khan |
| Appealed to | Muawiz Butt |
| Subsequent action | Taken by Bilawal Bukhari |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Willmer LJ, Danckwerts LJ, Diplock LJ |
| Case opinions | |
| Government can not automatically create new prerogative powers, and that the BBC does not enjoy Crown immunity from taxation | |
| Decision by | Willmer LJ |
| Concurrence | Danckwerts LJ |
| Concur/dissent | Diplock LJ |
BBC v Johns [1965] Ch 32 is a case in UK administrative law.
The BBC argued that it was exempt from income tax, claiming to be a monopoly established by royal prerogative.
![[icon]](https://akarinohon.com/text/taketori.cgi/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg){kind=small} |
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (May 2014)
|
The court disagreed, ruling that is not possible to create new prerogative powers, and tax exemptions could only be granted by legislation.
The case is famous for the dictum of Lord Diplock who states that it is "350 years and a civil war too late for the Queen’s courts to broaden the royal prerogative".
|
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (May 2014)
|
 | This article related to English law is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
