"I come therefore to the most difficult question in the case. B Is the Minister of Pensions bound by the Wa1: Office letter ? I think he is. The appellant thought, no doubt, that, as he WM servinit in the army. his claim to attributability would be dealt with by or through the War Office. So he wrote to the War Office. The War.Office did not refer him to the Minister of Pensions. They asumed authority over the matter and assured the appellant that his disability had been accepted as attric butable to military service. He was entitled to assume that they had consulted any other departments that might be concerned, such as the Ministry of Pensions, before they ave him the assurance. He was entitled to assume that the board of medi· cal officers who examined him were recognised by the Minister of Pensions for .the purpose of giving certificates as to attri· butability. Can it be seri.ously suggerted that, having got D that assurance, he wa!1 not entitled to rely on it I In my opinion if a government department in its dealings with a sub· ject takes it upon itself to assume authority upon a matter with which he Is concerned, he is entitled to rely upon having the authority which it assumes. H does not know, and cannot be expected to know, the limits of its authority. The department E itself is clearly bound, and as it is but an a11ent for the Crown, It binds the Crown also, and as the Crown is bound, so are the other departments, for they also are but agents of the Crown: The War Office letter therefore binds the CrC1wn and, through the Crown, it binds the Minister of PensiC1ns. The function of the Minister of Pension is to administer the royal warrant issuedi by the Crown, and he must so administer it as to honour all assurances given by or on beF half of the Crown." can help the respondents. That decision has been diapprov~ by the House of Lords in Howell v. Falmouth Boat Constrnction Co. Ltd.(2) Lord simonds referred to the observation of Lord Denning in Robertson v. Minister of Pensions(3) and observe.d : "My Lords, I know of no such principle iii our law nor was G any authority for it cited. The illegality of an act is the same whether or not the actor has been mi~lr.d by an assumption of authority on the part of a government officer however high or low in the hierarchy. I do not doubt that in criminal proceedings it would be a material factor that tl1e actor had. been thus misled . if knowledge was a necessary elr.ment of the offence, and in any ~Jc it would have a bearing on the sentence to be imposed. But (I) {1949) 1 K. B. 22,. (2) [1951) A.C. 837 at 845. (3) [1949] 1 K. B. 227.
