Grape Bay Ltd v Attorney-General of Bermuda [1999] UKPC 43 is a case concerning expressly analogous principles to compulsory purchase by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and is important for English land law.

It held that an Act passed by the Bermudian legislature to prevent foreign corporation restaurants from opening (including McDonald's) did not amount to a "regulatory taking" or an unconstitutional deprivation of property without compensation.

[2] 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 (devalued) by the Act.

He considered similar provisions from the constitutions of Dominica, Mauritius, and Malta where there is a family resemblance under many UK Overseas Territories, stating a general principle and then more specific rights.

However ,it was unnecessary to decide whether more general declaratory rights were capable of enforcement in each situation because the act was not a deprivation of property in any case.

The McDonald’s Corporation of Illinois has built up a successful world-wide business franchising the operation of fast food restaurants under its name and trade marks and in accordance with its standards.

To avoid this difficulty, Grape Bay complains that it has been deprived of the "choses in action" which were hastily assembled as the Bill was about to become law.

Grape Bay says that these choses in action are "property" and that the Act has made them worthless because the contingency on which they would have become operative and valuable, namely the opening of a McDonald’s Restaurant, cannot now occur.’ 27.

The best example is planning control (Westminster Bank Ltd v Beverley Borough Council [1971] AC 508) or in American terminology, zoning laws (Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Company (1926) 272 U.S. 365).

The give and take of civil society frequently requires that the exercise of private rights should be restricted in the general public interest.

But these principles do not require the payment of compensation to anyone whose private rights are restricted by legislation of general application which is enacted for the public benefit.