Burmah Oil Co Ltd v Lord Advocate
1965 House of Lords case of constitutional importance
Burmah Oil Company Ltd v Lord Advocate [1965] AC 75, was a court case, raised in Scotland, and decided ultimately in the House of Lords. The case is an important decision in British constitutional law and had unusual legal repercussions at the time.
Facts
This case concerned the destruction of oil fields in Burma belonging to the Burmah Oil Company by British forces during the Japanese invasion of Burma in 1942. The destruction was ordered in order to prevent the installations from falling into the hands of the advancing Imperial Japanese Army. Burmah Oil brought an action against the UK government, represented by the Lord Advocate.
In the Outer House of the Court of Session, Lord Kilbrandon found in favour of Burmah Oil. The Crown appealed, and the First Division of the Inner House of the Court of Session unanimously reversed the decision below. Burmah Oil then appealed to the House of Lords.
Judgment
Five Lords of Appeal in Ordinary sitting in the House of Lords held by a 3–2 majority that although the damage was lawful, it was the equivalent of requisitioning the property. Any act of requisition was done for the good of the public, at the expense of the individual proprietor, and for that reason, the proprietor should be compensated from public funds.
The public source identifies “Burmah Oil Co Ltd v Lord Advocate” as 1965 House of Lords case of constitutional importance. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Burmah, Lord and Advocate.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Burmah Oil Co Ltd v Lord Advocate”, the useful work is to connect “1965 House of Lords case of constitutional importance” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jan 10, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q4999362. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1965 and 1942.
Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Burmah Oil Co Ltd v Lord Advocate”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Burmah Oil Co Ltd v Lord Advocate primary sources, Burmah Oil Co Ltd v Lord Advocate archive and Burmah research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Burmah Oil Co Ltd v Lord Advocate”?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Burmah Oil Co Ltd v Lord Advocate” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.