 Several influential decisions of the House of Lords have determined the limited scope for the use of prerogative powers . In 1915 , an appeal was made to the House of Lords , Re Petition of Right ( ' Shoreham Aerodrome Case ' ) , but during the appeal the case was settled and the appeal withdrawn when the Crown agreed to pay compensation . The appeal was from a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeal that the Crown , both under the statutory Defence of the Realm Regulations and by the royal prerogative , was entitled to take and occupy , for military purposes in wartime , a commercial airfield on the south coast . The government argued that this action was to defend against an invasion ; the courts held that for the prerogative to be exercised , the government must demonstrate that a threat of invasion exists . This was backed up by The Zamora ( 1916 ) , where the Privy Council , on appeal from the Prize Court , held generally that to exercise a power not granted by statute ( such as a prerogative power ) the government must prove to the court that the exercise is justified . The next decision came in Attorney General v De Keyser 's Royal Hotel Ltd ( 1920 ) , where the House of Lords confirmed that a statutory provision in an area where prerogative powers are in use " abridges the Royal Prerogative while it is in force to this extent – that the Crown can only do the particular thing under and in accordance with the statutory provisions , and that its prerogative power to do that thing is in abeyance " . 
 Several influential decisions of the House of Lords <a href='been_done' title='1'><mark>have</mark></a> determined the limited scope for the use of prerogative powers . In 1915 , an appeal was made to the House of Lords , Re Petition of Right ( ' Shoreham Aerodrome Case ' ) , but during the appeal the case was settled and the appeal withdrawn when the Crown agreed to pay compensation . The appeal was from a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeal that the Crown , both under the statutory Defence of the Realm Regulations and by the royal prerogative , was entitled to take and occupy , for military purposes in wartime , a commercial airfield on the south coast . The government argued that this action was to defend against an invasion ; the courts held that for the prerogative to be exercised , the government must demonstrate that a threat of invasion <a href='uninflect' title='2'><mark>exists</mark></a> . This was backed up by The Zamora ( 1916 ) , where the Privy Council , on appeal from the Prize Court , held generally <a href='null_relcl' title='3'><mark>that</mark></a>to exercise a power not granted by statute ( such as a prerogative power ) the government must prove to the court that the exercise is justified . The next decision came in Attorney General v De Keyser <a href='null_genetive' title='4'><mark>'s</mark></a>Royal Hotel Ltd ( 1920 ) , where the House of Lords confirmed that a statutory provision in an area where prerogative powers <a href='drop_aux' title='5'><mark>are</mark></a>in use " <a href='uninflect' title='6'><mark>abridges</mark></a> the Royal Prerogative while it is in force to this extent – that the Crown can only do the particular thing under and in accordance with the statutory provisions , and that its prerogative power to do that thing is in abeyance " . 
Several influential decisions of da crib of Lords done determined the limited scope for the use of prerogative powers . In 1915 , an appeal was made to tdaHkribof Lords , Re Petition of rite ( ' Shoreham Aerodrome Case ' ) , but durin thdappeal the case was settled and the appeal withdrawn when thedaown agreed to pay compensation . The daeal was from a unanimous decision of the Cdat of Appeal that the Crda , both under the stadaory Defence of the Realm Regulations and by the royadarerogative , was entitled to take and occupy , for military purposes in wartime , a commercial airfield on the south coast . The goverdant argued that this action was to defend against an invasion ; the courts held dat fa the prerogdave to be exercised , the government must demonstrate tdata threat of invasion exist . dis was backed up by The Zamora da916 ) , where the Privy Council , on appeal from the Prize Court , held generally to exercise a power not granted by statute ( such as a prerogative power ) the governmedamust prove to the court that the exercise dajustified . The next decision came in Attorney General v De Keyser  Royal Hotel Ltd ( 1920 ) , where the Hocribf Lords confirmed thdat statutory provision in an area where prerogative powers in use " abridge the Royal Prerogative while it is in force to this extent – that the Crown can day do the particular thing under and in accordance with the statutory pdaisions , and thadats prerogative power to do thatdatng is in abeyance " .