| Pickin v British Railways Board | |
|---|---|
 Clevedon branch line | |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Citations | [1974] UKHL 1, [1974] AC 765 |
| Keywords | |
| Parliamentary sovereignty | |
Pickin v British Railways Board [1974] UKHL 1 is a UK constitutional law case, concerning parliamentary sovereignty.
Pickin claimed that the British Railways Board fraudulently misled Parliament when it passed a local act, the British Railways Act 1968 (c. xxxiv), which abolished a pre-1845 provision which stated that if a railway line were abandoned, the land would vest in the owners of the adjoining land. This provision, in this specific case, came from section 259 of the Bristol and Exeter Railway Act 1836 (6 & 7 Will. 4. c. xxxvi). Pickin was interested in ownership of the railways and so to test the board's right in court, they took advantage of and bought a small piece of land adjoining the railway line in 1969, the Clevedon-Yatton branch line in Somerset. When the railway closed, he claimed he was entitled to strip of the old line. He argued the board did not comply with standing orders of each House of Parliament that required individual notice to be given to owners affected by private legislation.
 | This section contains too many or overly lengthy quotations .(July 2020) |
The Court of Appeal held there was a triable issue. Lord Denning MR said the following:
The rule, as all members of the Bar know is that a charge of fraud is not to be placed on the record without evidence to support it. We are told by Mr. Tackaberry (who appears for Mr. Herrick Collins) that these paragraphs were pleaded by counsel because he had evidence before him to warrant it. He gave us some indications of it today. Suffice it to say that they are such as to warrant the paragraphs being pleaded. I read them as a charge that the board or their advisers consciously misled Parliament and by these means got section 18 enacted as it was. I say nothing as to whether those paragraphs will be proved in fact. But the board say that even though all that is stated in them is true, the paragraphs should be struck out. The master and the judge have so held. They have applied a supposed principle of English law, which was stated by Willes J. in 1871 in Lee v. Bude and Torrington Junction Railway Co. (1871) L.R. 6 C.P. 576 . It had been argued that Parliament was induced by fraudulent recitals to pass the Act which formed the company. Willes J. said, at p. 582:
"I would observe, as to these Acts of Parliament, that they are the law of this land; and we do not sit here as a court of appeal from Parliament. It was once said, - I think in Hobart, - that, if an Act of Parliament were to create a man judge in his own case, the court might disregard it. That dictum, however, stands as a warning, rather than an authority to be followed. We sit here as servants of the Queen and the legislature. Are we to act as regents over what is done by parliament with the consent of the Queen, lords and commons? I deny that any such authority exists. If an Act of Parliament has been obtained improperly, it is for the legislature to correct it by repealing it: but, so long as it exists as law, the courts are bound to obey it."That passage has been repeatedly quoted in books on constitutional law. Mr. Tackaberry says that that statement – and others like it in the Privy Council – was made without full argument. In particular he says that in all those cases there was no reference to an authority of the House of Lords. It is no doubt an old authority, but it says in terms that if a private Act of Parliament is obtained by fraud, the courts can investigate it. It is M'Kenzie v. Stewart . It was decided in 1752. It came from Scotland. It is fully set out in 9 Mor.Dic. 7443. The Court of Session had by a majority refused to entertain the suggestion that a private Act of Parliament was obtained by fraud. That decision was reversed in the House of Lords by seven to six. There were no reports in those days of the reasons of the House of Lords. But a note was taken of what Lord Hardwicke LC said, at p. 7445:
"The Lord Chancellor, in delivering his opinion, expressed a good deal of indignation at the fraudulent means of obtaining the act; and said, that he never would have consented to such private acts, had he ever entertained a notion that they could be used to cover fraud."A few years later, Sir William Blackstone in his Commentaries, 14th ed. (1803), Book II, p. 346, speaking of private Acts of Parliament, said:
"A law, thus made, though it binds all parties to the bill, is yet looked upon rather as a private conveyance, than as the solemn act of the legislature. It is not therefore allowed to be a publick, but a mere private statute; it is not printed or published among the other laws of the session; it heath been relieved against, when obtained upon fraudulent suggestions;"Blackstone refers for that proposition to M'Kenzie v. Stewart.
Counsel for the board submitted to us that those authorities are so old and so out of date that we should not regard them any more. He invited us to give the words of Willes J. their full scope and strike out these two paragraphs in the reply.
I do not think we should pronounce on this point finally or conclusively today. But I must say that there is sufficient material from the lath century for us to allow this plea to remain upon the record. It is quite plain that this action has to go to trial on the issue whether or not this branch line was abandoned before July 26, 1968. We should let it go for trial on the further issue whether this Act of Parliament was improperly obtained. That is a triable issue. It is deserving of investigation by the court. As I have said in the course of the argument, suppose the court were satisfied that this private Act was improperly obtained, it might well be the duty of the court to report that finding to Parliament, so that Parliament itself could take cognisance of it. Parliament could put the matter right, if it thought fit, by passing another Act. In my opinion it is the function of the court to see that the procedure of Parliament itself is not abused and that undue advantage is not taken of it. In so doing the court is not trespassing on the jurisdiction of Parliament itself. It is acting in aid of Parliament, and, I might add, in aid of justice. If it is proved that Parliament was misled, the court can, and should, draw it to the attention of Parliament.
Edmund-Davies LJ and Stephenson LJ agreed.
The House of Lords held there was no power to disregard an act of Parliament, public or private, or examine proceedings in Parliament to decide whether the act was obtained by irregularity or fraud. It followed that Pickin could not claim that the British Railways Board had fraudulently misled Parliament, so as to vitiate an act. This reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
Lord Morris said the following. [1]
In the courts there may be argument as to the correct interpretation of the enactment: there must be none as to whether it should be on the statute book at all.
...
It must surely be for Parliament to lay down the procedures which are to be followed before a Bill can become an Act. It must be for Parliament to decide whether its decreed procedures have been followed.
A hybrid offence, dual offence, Crown option offence, dual procedure offence, offence triable either way, or wobbler is one of the special class offences in the common law jurisdictions where the case may be prosecuted either summarily or on indictment. In the United States, an alternative misdemeanor/felony offense lists both county jail and state prison as possible punishment, for example, theft.
Taff Vale Railway Co v Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants [1901] UKHL 1, commonly known as the Taff Vale case, is a formative case in UK labour law. It held that, at common law, unions could be liable for loss of profits to employers that were caused by taking strike action.
In common law jurisdictions, a misrepresentation is a false or misleading statement of fact made during negotiations by one party to another, the statement then inducing that other party to enter into a contract. The misled party may normally rescind the contract, and sometimes may be awarded damages as well.
The Theft Act 1978 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It supplemented the earlier deception offences contained in sections 15 and 16 of the Theft Act 1968 by reforming some aspects of those offences and adding new provisions. See also the Fraud Act 2006.
Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd[1896] UKHL 1, [1897] AC 22 is a landmark UK company law case. The effect of the House of Lords' unanimous ruling was to uphold firmly the doctrine of corporate personality, as set out in the Companies Act 1862, so that creditors of an insolvent company could not sue the company's shareholders for payment of outstanding debts.
Misfeasance in public office is a cause of action in the civil courts of England and Wales and certain Commonwealth countries. It is an action against the holder of a public office, alleging in essence that the office-holder has misused or abused their power. The tort can be traced back to 1703 when Chief Justice Sir John Holt decided that a landowner could sue a police constable who deprived him of his right to vote. The tort was revived in 1985 when it was used so that French turkey producers could sue the Ministry of Agriculture over a dispute that harmed their sales.
R (Jackson) v Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56 is a House of Lords case noted for containing obiter comments by the judiciary acting in their official capacity suggesting that there may be limits to parliamentary sovereignty, the orthodox position being that it is unlimited in the United Kingdom.
The Martin Act is a New York anti-fraud law, widely considered to be the most severe blue sky law in the country. Passed in 1921, it grants the Attorney General of New York expansive law enforcement powers to conduct investigations of securities fraud and bring civil or criminal actions against alleged violators of the Act. It was used infrequently until the early 2000s, when then-Attorney General Eliot Spitzer began using it to bring civil cases against Wall Street firms. It has since become the basis for a number of high-profile cases, including a 2002 investigation of Merrill Lynch for alleged conflicts of interest, and the 2012 suit against Bank of New York Mellon Corp. for allegedly defrauding customers through foreign currency transactions.
United Kingdom administrative law is part of UK constitutional law that is designed through judicial review to hold executive power and public bodies accountable under the law. A person can apply to the High Court to challenge a public body's decision if they have a "sufficient interest", within three months of the grounds of the cause of action becoming known. By contrast, claims against public bodies in tort or contract are usually limited by the Limitation Act 1980 to a period of 6 years.
Royscot Trust Ltd v Rogerson[1991] EWCA Civ 12 is an English contract law case on misrepresentation. It examines the Misrepresentation Act 1967 and addresses the extent of damages available under s 2(1) for negligent misrepresentation.
The constitution of the United Kingdom comprises the written and unwritten arrangements that establish the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a political body. Unlike in most countries, no official attempt has been made to codify such arrangements into a single document, thus it is known as an uncodified constitution. This enables the constitution to be easily changed as no provisions are formally entrenched.
HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd v Chase Manhattan Bank[2003] UKHL 6 is an English contract law case concerning misrepresentation.
Mogul Steamship Co Ltd v McGregor, Gow & Co [1892] AC 25 is an English tort law case concerning the economic tort of conspiracy to injure. A product of its time, the courts adhered to a laissez faire doctrine allowing firms to form a cartel, which would now be seen as contrary to the Competition Act 1998.
Johnson v Unisys Limited [2001] UKHL 13 is a leading UK labour law case on the measure of damages for unfair dismissal and the nature of the contract of employment.
Parliamentary sovereignty is an ancient concept central to the functioning of the constitution of the United Kingdom but which is also not fully defined and has long been debated. Since the subordination of the monarchy under parliament, and the increasingly democratic methods of parliamentary government, there have been the questions of whether parliament holds a supreme ability to legislate and whether or not it should.
Re Rica Gold Washing Co (1879) 11 Ch D 36 is a UK insolvency law case concerning the liquidation when a company is unable to repay its debts. It held that a shareholder, to having standing to bring a winding up petition must have a sufficient tangible interest in what is left over after winding up.
Solle v Butcher [1950] 1 KB 671 is an English contract law case, concerning the right to have a contract declared voidable in equity. Denning LJ reaffirmed a class of "equitable mistakes" in his judgment, which enabled a claimant to avoid a contract. Denning LJ said,
... a contract will be set aside if the mistake of the one party has been induced by a material misrepresentation of the other, even though it was not fraudulent or fundamental; or if one party, knowing that the other is mistaken about the terms of an offer, or the identity of the person by whom it is made, lets him remain under his delusion and concludes a contract on the mistaken terms instead of pointing out the mistake.... A contract is also liable in equity to be set aside if the parties were under a common misapprehension either as to facts or as to their relative and respective rights, provided that the misapprehension was fundamental and that the party seeking to set it aside was not himself at fault.
Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp., 382 U.S. 172 (1965), was a 1965 decision of the United States Supreme Court that held, for the first time, that enforcement of a fraudulently procured patent violated the antitrust laws and provided a basis for a claim of treble damages if it caused a substantial anticompetitive effect.
Eclairs Group Ltd v JKX Oil & Gas plc[2015] UKSC 71 was a decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court relating to the exercise of directors' powers for a proper purpose under English company law.
Singularis Holdings Limited v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Limited[2019] UKSC 50 is a judicial decision of Supreme Court of the United Kingdom relating to the duties owed by a bank where a person acting on behalf of a corporate customer of the bank directs the bank to transfer money out of the company's account as part of a fraudulent scheme.