British Railways Board v Pickin [1974]
Share
British Railways Board v Pickin [1974] AC 765 revolves around the validity of a statute, particularly a private Act of Parliament, and addresses the principle that the courts should not interfere with or adjudicate on how Parliament exercises its function during the enactment of legislation.
In this case, there were two private Acts of Parliament, one from 1836 and another from 1845, which stated that if a railway line was abandoned, the land beneath the tracks would become the property of the owners of the adjoining lands. Subsequently, the British Railways Board, which became the owner of the railway lines, promoted the British Railways Act 1968. The 1968 Act nullified the 1836 Act and vested the lands beneath the abandoned track in the hands of the Board.
Pickin, who purchased land adjoining the area of the abandoned track, sued the Board, claiming that, based on the 1836 Act, part of the land beneath the track was lawfully his. The Board, in defence, argued that the 1968 Act invalidated the 1836 Act, and thus, the land belonged to the Board. Pickin then raised the argument that the Board had misled Parliament through a false recital in the preamble of the 1968 private Act.
The House of Lords, in its decision, held that the courts were obligated to consider and apply Acts of Parliament. Therefore, the validity of an Act could not be lawfully attacked by claiming that Parliament was misled, whether through fraud or otherwise, during the legislative process. The judgment emphasised that a claimant's equity claim could not be based on the allegation that they suffered damage because Parliament was misled by the opposing party. The courts were not to interfere with or pass judgment on how Parliament exercised its function when making decisions on legislation.
This case highlights the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and the separation of powers, asserting that the courts should respect the decisions made by Parliament during the enactment of statutes, even if there are allegations of misinformation or deceit.
In this case, there were two private Acts of Parliament, one from 1836 and another from 1845, which stated that if a railway line was abandoned, the land beneath the tracks would become the property of the owners of the adjoining lands. Subsequently, the British Railways Board, which became the owner of the railway lines, promoted the British Railways Act 1968. The 1968 Act nullified the 1836 Act and vested the lands beneath the abandoned track in the hands of the Board.
Pickin, who purchased land adjoining the area of the abandoned track, sued the Board, claiming that, based on the 1836 Act, part of the land beneath the track was lawfully his. The Board, in defence, argued that the 1968 Act invalidated the 1836 Act, and thus, the land belonged to the Board. Pickin then raised the argument that the Board had misled Parliament through a false recital in the preamble of the 1968 private Act.
The House of Lords, in its decision, held that the courts were obligated to consider and apply Acts of Parliament. Therefore, the validity of an Act could not be lawfully attacked by claiming that Parliament was misled, whether through fraud or otherwise, during the legislative process. The judgment emphasised that a claimant's equity claim could not be based on the allegation that they suffered damage because Parliament was misled by the opposing party. The courts were not to interfere with or pass judgment on how Parliament exercised its function when making decisions on legislation.
This case highlights the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and the separation of powers, asserting that the courts should respect the decisions made by Parliament during the enactment of statutes, even if there are allegations of misinformation or deceit.