Attorney General v Great Eastern Railway Company

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
Judgment Date1879
CourtHouse of Lords
Year1879
Date1879
[HOUSE OF LORDS.]THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL & EPHRAIM HUTCHINGS (RELATOR) APPELLANTS; AND THE DIRECTORS, &C., OF THE GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY RESPONDENTS.1880 May 25, 27.THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Selborne), LORD BLACKBURN and LORD WATSON.

Railway - Powers to contract - Ultra Vires.

The doctrine of ultrà vires as explained in The Ashbury Railway Company v. RicheF1 is to be maintained, but is to be applied reasonably, so that whatever is fairly incidental to those things which the Legislature has authorized by an Act of Parliament, ought not (unless expressly prohibited) to be held as ultrà vires.

In an Act of this kind granting special powers, what is not permitted is prohibited.

Per LORD WATSON:— The test applied in the Ashbury case to the powers of a joint stock company (limited), registered under the Companies Act, 1862, applies with equal force to the case of a railway company incorporated by Act of Parliament.

An Act of Parliament authorized a company to make a railway to T. and S. There were two other railway companies which were afterwards combined into one called the Great Eastern Railway Company. This latter company entered into a contract with the T. and S. Company, with which it was in connection in several respects, to supply it with rolling stock upon receiving a certain annual payment, and having certain other advantages. The contract was adopted by the shareholders of both companies. An action was brought against the Great Eastern Company, and an injunction asked for to restrain it from executing this contract. One of the Acts relating to the two companies contained (cl. 14) the following provision: “The two companies may enter into agreements with respect to the working, maintenance, and management of the Extension railway [this was the T. and S. Railway], or any part thereof, and of the railways of the two companies connected therewith [these were the two companies which had been incorporated under the name of the Great Eastern], and with respect to the apportionment of the traffic, and of the tolls, fares, and charges for traffic on the extension railway, and the railways of the two companies, the appointment of a joint committee, or any other matters incident to the carrying out the purposes of this Act.” The 15th clause of the Act was in these words, “The directors of the T. and S. Company and the directors of the two companies, respectively, may (subject to the sanction of the shareholders) enter into any contracts or agreements for effecting all or any of the purposes of this Act, or any objects incidental to the execution thereof, and every such contract or agreement may contain such covenants, clauses, powers, provisions, and conditions as may be mutually agreed upon between the parties thereto”:—

Held, that the contract of the G. E. Company to supply the T. and S. Company with rolling stock was not ultrà vires, but was warranted by the words of these sections of the Act.

THIS was an appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal, by which (diss. Lord Justice Baggallay) a previous decision of the Master of the Rolls was reversedF2.

In 1852 an Act was passed (15 Vict. c. lxxxiv.), by which the London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Company and the Eastern Counties Railway Company and the London and Blackwall Railway Company (the latter two being railway companies previously incorporated) were authorized to make a railway from the parishes of East and West Ham, in the county of Essex, to the Southend Pier, a branch to Tilbury Fort, and certain other works described in the Act as the “Extension railway.” All lands (sect. 7) purchased for the purpose of the extension railway were to be conveyed to the Eastern Counties and London and Blackwall Railway Companies jointly for the purposes of the Act. Each of the said companies was to be entitled (sect. 105) to use the railway and works for all purposes necessary for the traffic or business of the company. And the companies, with the authority of a general meeting of each (sect. 109) might from time to time make and carry into effect all such mutual contracts with respect to the undertaking by the Act authorized, or the interests of any one of the companies relating thereto. Under the powers of this Act the Eastern Counties and the London and Blackwall Companies raised part of the capital for the execution of the works of the Extension railway, and entered into a contract with Peto, Betts, & Brassey (afterwards called The Lessees) for the construction by them of the extension railway, and for a lease to them of the same for twenty-five years from the 1st of January, 1853. By an indenture of the 25th of March, 1854, executed by the Eastern Counties Railway and The Lessees of the other part, it was agreed that the railway company should, during the continuance of the contract provide and maintain, and from time to time replace in good condition and efficient working order, all such rolling stock, stores, and locomotive power as should be necessary for working the traffic of the extension railway, and should haul and convey the traffic of the railway on and over the same railway and on and over the line of the Eastern Counties Railway, or that line and the London and Blackwall Railway, as therein specially described. In consideration of all which things The Lessees were to pay certain sums specified in the contract. Other Acts were passed which referred to and in that way recognised what had thus been agreed upon, and the stipulations in the contract were duly performed.

By “The Great Eastern Railway Act, 1862,” the Eastern Connties Railway Company, and the other companies mentioned therein were incorporated, and all the privileges and liabilities of the Eastern Counties Railway Company became vested in “The Great Eastern Railway Company.

In June, 1863, was passed (26 & 27 Vict. c. lxix.) “An Act to authorize arrangements between the London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Company, and the lessees of their undertaking and the Eastern Counties and London and Blackwall Railway Companies, with reference to the lease and working of the London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway, and for other purposes.” This Act recited the various matters already mentioned, and the 14th section (that on which the question in this case turned) was in these terms:—

“The two companies may enter into agreements with respect to the working, maintenance, and management of the extension railway, or any part thereof, and of the railways of the two companies connected therewith, and with respect to the apportionment of the traffic, and of the tolls, fares, and charges for traffic, on the extension railway, and the railway of the two companies, the appointment of a joint committee, or of any other matter incident to the carrying out of the purposes of this Act.”

Section 15. “The directors of the Southend Company, and the directors of the two companies respectively may, subject to such sanction of shareholders as by this Act prescribed, enter into any contracts or agreements for effecting all or any of the purposes of this Act, or any objects incidental to the execution thereof, and every such contract or agreement may contain such covenants, clauses, powers, provisions, and conditions as may be mutually agreed upon between the parties thereto.”

The clauses of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, with respect to leasing railways were incorporated with this Act.

The London and Blackwall Railway Lease Act, 1865 (28 Vict.c. c.), enabled that company to lease the undertaking, property, and effects of the company to the Great Eastern Railway Company, which was authorized to accept such lease. The clauses of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, with respect to leasing railways were also incorporated with this Act. The authority granted in this Act of 1865 was acted on, and a lease was made.

The lease granted to Messrs. Peto, Betts, & Brassey, expired on the 3rd of July, 1875, and the London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Company entered into possession, and began to work the line. It had during the continuance of the lease been worked by the Great Eastern Railway Company. That company, on the expiration of the lease, entered into an arrangement with the London, Tilbury, and Southend Company as to the working of the line, which arrangement received the sanction of the shareholders of both companies.

This arrangement was embodied in an indenture of the 1st of June, 1876, by which (sect. 18) the Great Eastern Company undertook to supply the Tilbury Company with locomotive power on certain terms and conditions therein stated, subject to the servants, and engines, and coal, and other stores required for such working being carried free of charge over the Tilbury line.

Mr. Ephraim Hutchings, the secretary of the Locomotive Manufacturers Association, and the Railway Carriage and Waggon Builders Association, became (as relator, through the Attorney-General) the Plaintiff in an action to restrain the Great Eastern Railway Company from letting for hire any locomotive...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
149 cases
  • Datuk Haji Harun bin Haji Idris and Others; PP
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 January 1977
  • Penang Development Corporation v Teoh Eng Huat and Another
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 January 1992
  • Re the Worth Library
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 1 January 1995
    ... ... Plaintiffs ... The Attorney General and The Eastern Health Board ... Great Eastern Railway (1880) 5 A.C. 483 followed ... Tobacco Securities Trust Company Ltd. [1951] A.C. 297 a trust for the education ... ...
  • R (Harrison) v Secretary of State for Health
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 23 March 2009
    ...of their functions”). 35. This is a statutory expression of the common law principle referred to by Lord Selborne LC in Attorney General v Great Eastern Railway Company (1880) 5 App Cases 473, 478 which was cited with approval by Lord Carswell when giving the only reasoned judgment of the A......
  • Get Started for Free
3 books & journal articles
  • The House of Lords and the Northern Ireland Conflict – A Sequel
    • United Kingdom
    • Wiley The Modern Law Review No. 69-3, May 2006
    • 1 May 2006
    ...ssenting).158 [2002] NI 236 at [25].159 ibid at [33]and [34]; cf Lord Nolan at[38].160 As encapsulated in A-G vGreat EasternRailwayCo (1880) 5 AppCas 473.The House of Lords and the Northern Ireland Con£ict410 rTheModern Law Review Limited commercial companies or tolocal authorities, but not......
  • The Capacity Provisions in the Companies Act 71 of 2008
    • South Africa
    • Juta Stellenbosch Law Review No. , January 2021
    • 26 January 2021
    ...any othe r requireme nts stipulated by t he Registrar 21 Bell Houses Ltd v City Wall Properties Ltd [1966] 2 A ll ER 674 679, 68622 (1880) 5 APP CAS 473 (HL) See also Foster v Londo n, Chatham and Dove r Railway Co 1895 1 QB 711; J Kiggundu “ The Never Ending Stor y of Ultra Vires” (1991) 2......
  • ULTRA VIRES AND CORPORATE CAPACITY IN SINGAPORE
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 1989, December 1989
    • 1 December 1989
    ...11. Clarkson v. Davies[1923] AC 100, 110 (Privy Council on appeal from Ontario). 12. Attorney-General v. Great Eastern Railway Co(1880) 5 App Cas 473 (House of Lords); Re Horsley & Weight Ltd[1982] Ch 442, 448 (Court of Appeal, England). 13. See s.23(l). 14. See eg Rosemary Simmons Memorial......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT