Pickin v British Railways Board
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Lord Reid,Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest,Lord Wilberforce,Lord Simon of Glaisdale,Lord Cross of Chelsea |
| Judgment Date | 30 January 1974 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1974] UKHL J0130-1 |
| Date | 30 January 1974 |
| Court | House of Lords |
[1974] UKHL J0130-1
Lord Reid
Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest
Lord Wilberforce
Lord Simon of Glaisdale
Lord Cross of Chelsea
House of Lords
Upon Report from the Appellate Committee, to whom was referred the Cause British Railways Board and others against Pickin, that the Committee had heard Counsel, as well on Tuesday the 23d, Wednesday the 24th, Thursday the 25th, Monday the 29th and Wednesday the 31st, days of October last, as on Thursday the 1st day of November last, upon the Petition and Appeal of British Railways Board whose Principal Office is situate at 222 Marylebone Road, London N.W.1, and L. A. Moore (Builders) Limited whose registered office is situate at Midland Bank Chambers, High Street, Nailsea, Bristol praying, That, the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 3d of October 1972, might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Order might be reversed, varied or altered, or that the Petitioners might have such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, might seem meet; as also upon the Case of George William Leonard Pickin, lodged in answer to the said Appeal; and due consideration had this day of what was offered on either side in this Cause:
It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Court of Parliament of Her Majesty the Queen assembled, That the said Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 3d day of October 1972, complained of in the said Appeal, be, and the same is hereby, Reversed except as to Costs, and that the Judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice Chapman of the 1st day of June 1972, thereby set aside, be, and the same is hereby, Restored: And it is further Ordered, That the first Appellants do pay, or cause to be paid, to the said Respondent the Costs incurred by him in respect of the said Appeal to this House, the amount of such Costs to be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments: And it is also further Ordered, That the Cause be, and the same is hereby, remitted back to the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, to do therein as shall be just and consistent with this Judgment.
My Lords,
Our Railway system was built up piecemeal during the nineteenth century. Generally promoters obtained from Parliament private Acts authorising comparatively short stretches of Railway and giving compulsory powers to acquire the necessary land. Before 1845 there was no uniformity in the provision of these Acts but many, we were informed about a hundred, contained provisions to the effect that if the proposed railway was abandoned or discontinued the land acquired for it would revert to the owners for the time being of adjoining land. If the land on opposite sides of the railway had different owners each would get half of the railway land between their properties. Apparently such provisions were no longer inserted in private Bills after 1845.
The Appellants' title to a substantial amount of their railway land flows from these old pre-1845 Acts. When, some years ago, it became evident that numerous stretches of railway would have to be closed down, they realised that some of these old reverter provisions would take effect unless they obtained new rights from Parliament. So they promoted a Bill which, on 26th July, 1968, became the British Railways Act, 1968. Chapter xxxiv, section 18, of that Act provides:—
"18.—(1) As from the passing of this Act, the provisions to which this section applies shall not apply to any lands vested in the Board.
(2) This section applies to any provision in an enactment to the effect that, if at any time after the coming into force of that provision a railway or part of a railway shall be abandoned or given up, or if after the same shall have been completed it shall cease (whether for a specified period or not) to be used or employed as a railway, the lands taken for the purposes of such railway or part of a railway, or over which the same shall pass, shall vest in the owners for the time being of the adjoining lands, being a provision in an enactment relating to an existing or former railway or part of a railway comprised in the undertaking of the Board and not being a provision for the protection or benefit of a named person or the successors of a named person or for the protection of the owner, lessee or occupier of specified lands."
For reasons which will appear later it would not be proper to make any decision as to the proper construction of that section. But I can say that at first sight it appears to take away without compensation all rights of adjoining owners to a reversion of land to them on the closing down of any part of our railway system.
The Respondent is interested in the preservation of railways and in order to be in a position to test the Appellants' right in court he took advantage of the closing of the Clevedon Yatton branch line in Somerset, and on 20th October, 1969, purchased for ten shillings from the owner of lands adjoining the railway
"… ALL THAT his estate and interest in All that piece of land and track formerly part of the Yatton to Clevedon Branch Railway Line of British Rail Together with the fixtures and appurtenances attached thereto including the metal rails the sleepers and the ballast laid on the said track TO HOLD the same unto the Purchaser in fee simple".
Then on 23rd October, 1969, he raised the action with which we are concerned. He founds on section 259 of the Bristol and Exeter Railway Act, 1836, which is in these terms:—
"If the said Railway or any part thereof shall at any time hereafter be abandoned or given up by the said Company, or after the same shall have been completed shall for the space of three years cease to be used and employed as a Railway, then and in such case the lands so purchased or taken by the said Company for the purposes of this Act, or otherwise the parts thereof over which the said Railway or any part of such railway which shall be so abandoned or given up by the said Company shall pass, shall vest in the owners for the time being of the land adjoining that which shall be so abandoned or given up in the manner following; (that is to say) One moiety thereof in the owners of the land on the one side, and the remainder thereof in the owners of the land on the other side thereof."
He has two alternative grounds of action. First he says that under section 259 this piece of railway land reverted to his predecessor in title and now belongs to him because, on the facts, this section came into operation before the passing of the 1968 Act which repealed it. That is denied by the Appellants and admittedly that issue must go to trial whatever be the outcome of the present case.
The Respondent's alternative ground of action is not easy to state concisely. He appears to allege that in obtaining the enactment of section 18 of the 1968 Act in their favour they fraudulently concealed certain matters from Parliament and its officers and thereby mislead Parliament into granting this right to them.
This case arises because by Summons of 18th January, 1972, the Appellants sought an Order that part of the Respondent's pleadings be struck out under Order 18, Rule 19, on the ground that it is frivolous and vexatious and that it is an abuse of the process of the Court. Thereupon by order of the Master in Chambers of 21st February, 1972, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Respondent's amended reply were struck out. These were the parts which raised the Respondent's alternative grounds of action. An appeal to Chapman J. was dismissed. But a further appeal to the Court of Appeal was allowed on 3rd October, 1972, and the Appellants now appeal to this House to have the order of the Master restored.
I do not think it necessary to set out these paragraphs in full because admittedly the position now is that if by amendment of these paragraphs the Respondent can plead an arguable case he is entitled to succeed and to have this issue sent to trial.
As the Respondent's case developed in argument it appeared that he seeks one or other of two methods of relief against section 18. First he says that section 18 confers a benefit on the Appellants and that if he can prove that Parliament was fraudulently misled into enacting this benefit the Court can and should disregard the section. And, secondly, he says that even if the Court cannot do that and the section has taken effect, the Court can on proof that Parliament was so misled nullify the resulting benefit to the Appellants by requiring them to hold in trust for him the benefit which the section has given to the Appellants to his detriment.
The idea that a Court is entitled to disregard a provision in an Act of Parliament on any ground must seem strange and startling to anyone with any knowledge of the history and law of our Constitution, but a detailed argument has been submitted to your Lordships and I must deal with it.
I must make it plain that there has been no attempt to question the general supremacy of Parliament. In earlier times many learned lawyers seem to have believed that an Act of Parliament could be disregarded in so far as it was contrary to the law of God or the law of nature or natural justice but since the supremacy of Parliament was finally demonstrated by the Revolution of 1688 any such idea has become obsolete.
The Respondent's contention is that there is a difference between a public and a private Act. There are of course great differences between the methods and procedures followed in dealing with public and private Bills, and there may be some differences in the methods of construing their provisions. But the Respondent argues for a much more fundamental difference. There is little in modern authority that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
[1] The Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Dominica [2] The Speaker of the House of Assembly of the Commonwealth of Dominica [3] Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Dominica Appellants v Hector John (Leader of the Opposition) Respondent [ECSC]
...how inviting the invited excursion may appear to be. Hoani Te HeuHeu Tukino v Aotea District Maori Land Board [1941] AC 308 , British Railways Board v Pickin [1974] AC 765 applied. Pereira, C.J. 1 The Commonwealth of Dominica ("Dominica") upon gaining full statehood, like a few of its Ca......
- A-G of Singapore; JB Jeyaretnam
-
[1] Hon. Mark Brantley (Leader of the Opposition) [2] Hon. Eugene Hamilton [3] Hon. Shawn Richards [4] Hon. Vance Armory [5] Hon. Sam Condor [6] Hon. Timothy Harris Claimants/Respondents v [1] Hon. Curtis Martin (Speaker of the National Assembly) [2] Hon. Denzil Douglas (Prime Minister) [3] Hon. Dr. Asim Martin (Deputy Prime Minister) [4] Hon. Patrice Nisbett [5] Hon. Marcella Liburd [6] Hon. Glen Phillip [7] Hon. Richard Skerrit [8] Hon. Nigel Carty [9] Hon. Jason Hamilton [10] Attorney General of St. Chrisptopher and Nevis Defendants/Applicants [ECSC]
...to impose discipline within their walls, is absolute and exclusive." See also R. v Chaytor (David) [2011] 1 A.C. 684 25 See also Pickins v British Railway Board [1974] AC 765 in which the court refused to investigate alleged defects of procedure in the passage of a certain piece of legislat......
-
2747-3174 Québec Inc. v. Quebec (Régie des permis d'alcool), [1996] 3 SCR 919
...général de Québec, [1964] S.C.R. 252; Taylor v. Attorney-General (1837), 8 Sim. 413, 59 E.R. 164; British Railways Board v. Pickin, [1974] A.C. 765; Stubart Investments Ltd. v. The Queen, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 536; Hills v. Canada (Attorney General), [1988] 1 S.C.R. 513; Canada (Attorney General)......
-
Table of cases
...[1995] 2 S.C.R. 97, 124 D.L.R. (4th) 129, [1995] S.C.J. No. 36 ...............................361 Pickin v. British Railways Board, [1974] A.C. 765 (H.L.) ................................................. 65 Potter v. Halifax Regional School Board, 2002 NSCA 88, 215 D.L.R. (4th) 441, [2002]......
-
Sharing Water from Transboundary Rivers: Limits on State Power
...of State Taxation (WA) (1996) 189 CLR 253, 271 (Brennan CJ, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron JJ). See also Pickin v British Railways Board [1974] AC 765, 782 (Lord Reid). 35 Union Steamship Co of Australia Pty Ltd v King (1988) 166 CLR 1, 14. 36 Brownlie v State Pollution Control Commission (1992) 2......
-
CRIMINAL JUSTICE UNDER THE UNITED KINGDOM HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
...at [82]. 123Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2) (Grand Chamber) (6 October 2005) (App 74025/01) at [79]. Cf Pickin v British Railways Board[1974] AC 765. 124Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2)(Grand Chamber) (6 October 2005) (App 74025/01) at [84]. 125 See, eg, Frodl v Austria (8 April 2010) (App 20201......
-
SINGAPORE ACADEMY OF LAW ANNUAL LECTURE 2013 —“THE RULE OF LAW AS A MANY COLOURED DREAM COAT”
...in our democratic system of government and the common law … a view which Lord Reid firmly rejected in Pickin v British Railways Board ([1974] AC 765 at 782), is another question which we need not explore. The cases which seemed to favour some such restraints were all New Zealand decisions.2......