british railways board v pickin.doc

8/10/2019 British Railways Board v Pickin.doc

1/18

Separacin de poderes British Railways Board v Pickin 1

British Railways Board v Pickin.HOUSE OF LORDS.BRITISH RAILA!S BOARD A"D OTHERS.v.PI#$I".

Lord Reid.Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest .Lord Wilberforce.Lord Simon of Glaisdale.Lord Cross of Chelsea. Lord R%id.&! LORDS'.Our Railway system was built up piecemeal durin the nineteenth century.Generally promoters obtained from !arliament pri"ate #cts authorisin com- parati"ely shortstretches of Railway and i"in compulsory powers to ac$uire the necessary land. Before %&'(there was no uniformity in the pro"ision of these #cts but many) we were informed about ahundred) contained pro"isions to the effect that if the proposed railway was abandoned ordiscontinued the land ac$uired for it would re"ert to the owners for the time bein of ad*oininland. +f the land on opposite sides of the railway had different owners each would et half of therailway land between their properties. #pparently such pro"isions were no loner inserted inpri"ate Bills after %&'(.,he #ppellants title to a substantial amount of their railway land flows from these old pre-%&'(#cts. When) some years ao) it became e"ident that numerous stretches of railway would ha"eto be closed down) they realised that some of these old re"erter pro"isions would tae effect

unless they obtained new rihts from !arliament. So they promoted a Bill which) on /0th 1uly)%20&) became the British Railways #ct) %20&. Chapter 333i") section %&) of that #ct pro"ides4 56 %&.57%8 #s from the passin of this #ct) the pro"isions to which 6 this section applies shall notapply to any lands "ested in the Board.6 7/8 ,his section applies to any pro"ision in an enactment to the 6 effect that) if at any time afterthe comin into force of that pro- 6 "ision a railway or part of a railway shall be abandoned ori"en 6 up) or if after the same shall ha"e been completed it shall cease 6 7whether for a specifiedperiod or not8 to be used or employed as a 6 railway) the lands taen for the purposes of suchrailway or part 6 of a railway) or o"er which the same shall pass) shall "est in the 6 owners for thetime bein of the ad*oinin lands) bein a pro"ision 6 in an enactment relatin to an e3istin or

former railway or part 6 of a railway comprised in the undertain of the Board and not bein 6 apro"ision for the protection or benefit of a named person or the 6 successors of a named personor for the protection of the owner) 6 lessee or occupier of specified lands.6 9or reasons which willappear later it would not be proper to mae any decision as to the proper construction of thatsection. But + can say that at first siht it appears to tae away without compensation all rihts ofad*oinin owners to a re"ersion of land to them on the closin down of any part of our railwaysystem.,he Respondent is interested in the preser"ation of railways and in order to be in a position totest the #ppellants riht in court he too ad"antae of the closin of the Cle"edon :atton branchline in Somerset) and on /;th October. %202) purchased for ten shillins from the owner of lands

ad*oinin the railway 6. . . #LL ,


2/18


/.,hen on />rd October) %202) he raised the action with which we are concerned. 0) which is in these terms4 5 6 +f the saidRailway or any part thereof shall at any time hereafter 6 be abandoned or i"en up by the saidCompany) or after the same 6 shall ha"e been completed shall for the space of three years ceaseto 6 be used and employed as a Railway) then and in such case the 6 lands so purchased or

taen by the said Company for the purposes 6 of this #ct) or otherwise the parts thereof o"erwhich the said Rail- 6 way or any part of such railway which shall be so abandoned or 6 i"en upby the said Company shall pass) shall "est in the owners 6 for the time bein of the land ad*oininthat which shall be so 6 abandoned or i"en up in the manner followin@ 7that is to say8 One 6moiety thereof in the owners of the land on the one side) and the 6 remainder thereof in theowners of the land on the other side thereof.6 rd October) %2A/) and the #ppellants nowappeal to this .,he Respondents contention is that there is a difference between a public and a pri"ate #ct.,here are of course reat differences between the methods and procedures followed in dealin

UK


3/18


with public and pri"ate Bills) and there may be some differences in the methods of construintheir pro"isions. But the Respondent arues for a much more fundamental difference. ,here islittle in modern authority that he can rely on. ,he mainstay of his arument is a decision of this2 in obtainin the #ct %/ Geo. ++) chap. "ii.,he #ct in a lon preamble narrated the e3istence of those debts and stated that it would be forthe ad"antae of all concerned that the lands should be sold and the debts paid. ,hen it enacted

that the land should be sold and 6 that the Monies arisin by such Sale or Sales) should be"ested in) 6 and settled upon) and the same were thereby "ested in the said ,rustees) 6 or anytwo or more of them) or the Sur"i"or) or any two or more of 6 them) should and would)immediately after such Sale or Sales) or as 6 soon after as con"eniently miht be) apply anddispose of the Monies 6 arisin by such Sale or Sales) in the first !lace) for payin and defray- 6in the Chares and ?3penses attendin the passin this #ct@ and 6 afterwards) and in the ne3tplace) to pay off and dischare the said 6 Sum of (%.>(; Mers Scots) or /&(/. %(s. 0d. Sterlinwith which the 6 said !remises stood then chared and incumbered as aforesaid) with 6 the#rrears of +nterest@ and should) with the lie !ri"ity and Consent.6 lay out the Residue and Surplus of the Money arisin by such Sale) 6 in the !urchase of otherLands and


4/18


Some time after Lord Roystons death) Sir enneth Macenie who would ha"e been the heir ofentail in possession if the lands had not been sold brouht an action aainst Stewart therandson and heir of Lord Royston re$uirin him to account for the money which Lord Roystonhad wronfully obtained. +n the Court of Session Stewart did not attempt to dispute these facts.2 when the #ct waspassed) so he may ha"e had some part in passin the #ct. +n any case + do not read his

obser"ations as indicatin the round of decision but rather as a comment on what too placewhen the #ct was passed.

UK


5/18


+ must notice some other comments in the case made within a few years after its decision. Lord?lchies in an appendi3 to a wor on ,ailie says with reard to the case 7o. '084 6 "ide LordChancellors speech with the 6 cases by which it seems that notwithstandin such pri"ate actsfraud either 6 in obtainin them or in the e3ecution may be tried as well as in pri"ate 6 contracts 6.#ain) we do not now what information Lord ?lchies had about the case. ,he facts must ha"ebeen enerally nown but no detailed account of proceedins in this


6/18


7/18


!arliament caused him loss. + am therefore clearly of opinion that this appeal should be allowedand the *udment of Chapman 1. restored.Lord &orris o( Borth)y)*%st.&y lords'.,he $uestion which is before us is whether pararaphs > and ' of the #mended Reply should bestruc out in accordance with the Order made by the Master and affirmed by the 1ude. ,here

are certain issues of fact in the action which are not affected by those pararaphs. ,he !laintiffasserts that the pro"isions of section /(2 of the Bristol and ?3eter Railway #ct. %&>0) wereapplicable to the trac of the Cle"edon-:atton Railway line and that the Railway was abandonedor i"en up or for three years had ceased to be used and that as a conse$uence a "ery smallpart of the trac came into the ownership of a Mr. ee"ill who for a consideration of ten shillinssold that part to the !laintiff on the /;th October) %202. +f certain issues of fact are decidedad"ersely to the !laintiff then he will be in reat difficulty if) as the British Railways Board assert)the pro"isions of section /(2 ceased to apply to the trac as from the /0th 1uly) %20&) as a resultof the enactment on that date of the British Railways #ct) %20&.Section %&7%8 of that #ct is in the followin terms 4- 6 #s from the passin of this #ct) the

pro"isions to which this 6 section applies shall not apply to any lands "ested in the Board.6Subsection 7/8 appears to describe such pro"isions in such a way as to include section /(2.+n their defence to the !laintiffs claims in the action British Railways Board ha"e pleaded that inso far as the !laintiffs purported ownership of the piece of land in $uestion was alleed to reston the pro"isions of section /(2 his claim to ownership was in"alid by reason of the pro"isions ofsection %& of the #ct of %20&. +t was in order to meet the prospect of defeat by reason of thosepro"isions that pararaphs > and ' of the Reply were drafted.+n my "iew) it is beyond $uestion that the substance of the plea ad"anced by the two pararaphsis that the Court is entitled to and should disreard what !arliament has enacted in section %&.,he $uestion of fundamental importance which arises is whether the Court should entertain the

proposition that an #ct of !arliament can so be assailed in the Courts that matters shouldproceed as thouh the #ct or some part of it had ne"er been !assed. + consider that suchdoctrine would be danerous and impermissible.+t is the function of the Courts to administer the laws which !arliament &.has enacted. +n the processes of !arliament there will be much consideration whether a Billshould or should not in one form or another become an enactment. When an enactment ispassed there is finality unless and until it is amended or repealed by !arliament. +n the Courtsthere may be arument as to the correct interpretation of the enactment4 there must be none asto whether it should be on the statute boo at all.+n pararaph > of the #mended Reply there is an alleation that a recital in the preamble was

false. Whether on a fair readin of the whole #ct this is aruable has not now to be decided.,here follows an alleation of fraud 7i.e. that the British Railways Board new that there was afalse recital8 and an alleation that no notice was i"en of 6 intended compulsory 6 ac$uisition 6.Whether or not it is apt to describe the effect of section %& as compulsory ac$uisition does notnow arise. But whether or not there are any points of construction of the #ct that can beformulated) what pararaph ' of the #mended Reply proceeds to assert is 7a8 that the BritishRailways Board broe the standin orders of !arliament and 7b8 failed to comply with thestandin orders of !arliament and 7c8 included a misleadin preamble and 7d8 6 misled!arliament 6 and 7e8 obtained e3 parte as an unopposed Bill an #ct which was solely for theirbenefit) and that as a result 6 the #ct is ineffecti"e to depri"e the !laintiff of his land andproprietary 6 rihts 6 and furthermore that the British Railways Board 6 cannot rely 6 on the #ct.

,houh here and there in the two pararaphs there occurs the word 6 construction 6 + do notthin that it can be doubted that the effect and the purpose of the two pararaphs is to assert thatthe Courts could and should for the reasons which + ha"e set out under 7a8 to 7e8 abo"e disreard

UK


8/18


certain enactin pro"isions of the #ct which is cited as the British Railways #ct) %20&) and whichas is recited in the #ct was 6enacted by the Fueens most 6 ?3cellent Ma*esty) by and with thead"ice and consent of the Lords 6 Spiritual and ,emporal) and Commons) in this present!arliament 6 assembled) and by the authority of the same.6 While any leitimate point may betaen as to the proper construction of what !arliament has enacted + ha"e no doubt thatpararaphs > and ' of the #mended Reply should not be allowed to stand inasmuch as they

assert and claim the e3ercise by the Courts of a power to disreard what !arliament hasenacted.,here is a clear distinction between recitals to an #ct which are mere recitals and the enactinpro"isions of an #ct. ,he recitals may be e3amined when the enactin pro"isions are beinconstrued but e"en if in some particular instance the recitals to an #ct were thouht to be faultythat would i"e no warrant for disobeyin or inorin or "aryin the clear enactin pro"isions ofan #ct.or) in my "iew) should any redrafted pleadin be allowed which re"i"es in altered form anattac upon the "alidity of the enactin pro"isions of an #ct of !arliament. or) in my "iew) shouldthe same attac be allowed in shrouded form by assertin that if the #ct is effecti"e and if as a

conse- $uence some rihts were taen away from some people) British Railways Board shouldhold their lands sub*ect to some style of burden or e$uity on the basis that !arliament ouht notto ha"e enacted as it did and only did so enact as a result of what the two pararaphs of the#mended Reply alleed.We are not in the present case concerned with any $uestion as to any possible personal rihtsresultin from some contract or arranement made between parties in relation to or in connectionwith some prospecti"e leislation.,he conclusion which + ha"e reached results) in my "iew) not only from a settled and sustainedline of authority which + see no reason to $uestion and which + should thin be endorsed but alsofrom the "iew that any other conclusion would be constitutionally undesirable and impracticable.

+t must surely be for !arliament to lay down the procedures which are to be followed before a Billcan become an #ct. +t must be for !arliament to decide 2.whether its decreed procedures ha"e in fact been followed. +t must be for !arliament to lay downand to construe its standin orders and further to decide whether they ha"e been obeyed4 it mustbe for !arliament to decide whether in any particular case to dispense with compliance with suchorders.+t must be for !arliament to decide whether it is satisfied that an #ct should be passed in the formand with the wordin set out in the #ct. +t must be for !arliament to decide what documentarymaterial or testimony it re$uires and the e3tent to which !arliamentary pri"ilee should attach. +twould be impracticable and undesirable for the


9/18


!arliament) nor into what was done 6 pre"ious to its introduction) or what passed in !arliamentdurin its 6 proress in its "arious staes throuh both


10/18


11/18


+n this state of authority) it is not surprisin that an application was made by the Board to strieout from Mr. !icins pleadin 7sc. Reply8 the two pararaphs attacin the "alidity or effect ofsection %& of the %20& #ct) nor that the application should be ranted by the Master and by the*ude in chambers. But their decision was re"ersed by the Court of #ppeal who considered thatthe issue on this point should o to trial. +t is clear that the conse$uence of allowin the trial toproceed on the basis of the law as stated by the Court of #ppeal would be to re$uire the Court to

embar on far-reachin en$uiries as to the proceedins in !arliament which led to theenactment of the %20& #ct. 9or this reason it was) e3ceptionally) necessary for this


12/18


with- 6 out the consent) e3pressly i"en) of all parties in bein) and capable 6 of consent) thatha"e the remotest interest in the matter4 unless such 6 consent shall appear to be per"ersely andwithout reason withheld.6 #nd) as was before hinted) an e$ui"alent in money or other estate 6 is usually settled uponinfants) or persons not in esse) or not of capacity 6 to act for themsel"es) who are to beconcluded by this act. #nd a 6 eneral sa"in is constantly added) at the close of the bill) of the

riht 6 and interest of all persons whatsoe"er@ e3cept those whose consent is 6 so i"en orpurchased) and who are therein particularly named @ thouh 6 it hath been holden) that) e"en ifsuch sa"in be omitted) the act shall 6 bind none but the parties. 7Co. %>&8 6 # law) thus made)thouh it binds all parties to the bill) is yet 6 looed upon rather as a pri"ate con"eyance) than asthe solemn act of 6 the leislature. +t is not therefore allowed to be a public) but a mere 6 pri"atestatute @ it is not printed or published amon the other laws 6 of the session @ it hath been relie"edaainst when obtained upon 6 fraudulent suestions@ 7Richardson ". 6 Mcenie ". Stuart. =om. !roc. %> Mar. %A('8. +t hath been holden 6 to be "oid if contraryto law and reason 7' Rep. %/8@ and no *ude or 6 *ury is bound to tae notice of it) unless thesame be specially set 6 forth and pleaded to them. +t remains howe"er enrolled amon the 6

public records of the nation) to be for e"er preser"ed as a perpetual 6 testimony of thecon"eyance or assurance so made or established.6 ,he words 6 it hath been relie"ed aainst6are not precise and must be related to what was done4 they are no warrant for a proposition thatthe #ct in any respect was declared or treated as in"alid. Blacstone limits what he says to 6estate #cts 6 rearded as comparable with pri"ate assurances@ %>. it would be surprisin if he had not. ha"in reard to his enerally stron "iews as to theso"ereinty of !arliament.!rofessor (' ff8 and treats Mcenie ". Stewart in a similar manner. But he does continue with a passaeof some interest in which he refers to the principle applied by courts of e$uity of imposin a trustupon rihts obtained at law where any undue or unconscientious ad"antae has been obtainedby the leal owner.


13/18


,here is no warrant in authority) or) in my opinion) in principle) for allowin a person aainst thepro"isions of a statute to achie"e in e$uity a result which) on the same facts) he cannot achie"eat law. + therefore consider that Mr. !icin) in pararaphs > and ' of his reply) has nomaintainable or aruable case.Before + deal specifically with the pleadin there are some matters which merit perhaps somebrief supplementary comments. 9irst) + must say that) thouh for the present purpose) we are

called upon to assume the truth of any facts alleed) + am far from con"inced) as a matter ofconstruction) that there is any substance whate"er in the contention that the (th recital of the%20& #ct was false or misleadin in any way. ,he recital is in the common form of pri"ate #ctswhich are desined to confer powers to ac$uire land compulsorily and there seems to be anob"ious distinction between those pro"isions in the #ct which concern 6 lands authorised to beac$uired 6 and used 6 7+ $uote from the recital8) namely) sections %>-%A) and section %& which isnot so concerned and to which) on the face of it) the recital does not refer. 9or my part) + ha"era"e doubt whether the necessity to assume the truth of pleaded facts e3tends so far as tore$uire the acceptance of an uncon"incin arument on construction. But assumin the contrary)+ do not understand how the courts can en$uire whether !arliament was misled by this recital

into enactin section %&.


14/18


which) if properly used) can pre"ent any use of that procedure which may be detrimental to theinterest of indi"iduals or of the public.Whether in any particular case) or in this case) these safeuards were made use of) whether theattention of !arliament) its committees or officers) was called to the pro"ision in $uestion) or whatdecisions 7riht or wron8 were taen) are not matters into which the Courts can en$uire. !ri"ate#cts) such as the #ct of %20&) as the authorities already cited show) are as fully #cts of

!arliament as public #cts) and compel acceptance by the Courts) On the leal foundations soestablished it is necessary to deal with the pleadin. +t should be made clear that there areissues and contentions raised in the action which are perfectly leitimate and which may properlyo to trial. ,his appeal is only concerned with pararaphs > and ' of the #mended Reply. ,herele"ant alleations can be stated as the followin4,he #ct of %20& contains a false recital) drafted by the British Railways Board) as promoters)which was nown by the Board to be false./. otice was i"en to ad*oinin owners of lands which miht be effected by section %&@ and nopublic notice was i"en of the Boards intended 6 compulsory ac$uisition 6.>. 9or the reasons stated in 7%8 and 7/8) section %& does not in its true construction bar this

action or depri"e the plaintiff of his interest in land without compensation.%(.'. #lternati"ely) the Board as promoters ha"e broen the Standin Orders of !arliament andincluded a misleadin preamble and misled !arliament4 accordinly) this #ct is ineffecti"e todepri"e the plaintiff of his land or proprietary rihts and the Board cannot rely on it.,he whole of this is upon the clearest authority which + ha"e stated impermissible) and unlesscapable of amendment must be struc out.+n this


15/18


be odd if the same thin could be done indirectly) throuh frustration of the enacted law by theapplication of some alleed doctrine of e$uity.# second concomitant of the so"ereinty of !arliament is that the and ' of his Reply 7e"en as souht to beamended8 is seein to impeach proceedins in !arliament) and that the issues raised by thosepararaphs cannot be tried without $uestionin proceedins in !arliament.+t is well nown that in the past there ha"e been danerous strains between the law courts and!arliament5danerous because each institution has its own particular role to play in ourconstitution) and because collision between the two institutions is liely to impair their power to"ouchsafe those constitutional rihts for which citiens depend on them. So for many years

!arliament and the courts ha"e each been astute to respect the sphere of action and thepri"ilees of the other5!arliament) for e3ample) by its sub *udice rule) the courts by tain careto e3clude e"idence which miht amount to infrinement of parliamentary pri"ilee 7for a recente3ample) see =inle ". #ssociated ewspapers Ltd. J%20;K / F.B. ';(8. ,he Respondent to theinstant appeal claimed that he could dischare the onus of pro"in the alleations in pararaphs> and ' of the Reply merely by reliance on presumptions) so that proceedins in !arliament neednot) so far as he was concerned) be forensically $uestioned. ?"en if this were so) it would stilllea"e unanswered how the #ppellant could proceed in rebuttal without callin parliamentaryproceedins in $uestion. + am $uite clear that the issues would not be fairly tried withoutinfrinement of the Bill of Rihts and of that eneral parliamentary pri"ilee which is part of the

law of the land.,he Respondent claims) howe"er) that) whate"er may be the position as reards a public #ct of!arliament) it is open to a litiant to impun the "alidity 7or) at least) by in"oin *urisdiction ine$uity) nullify the operation8 of an enactment in a pri"ate #ct of !arliament. But theconsiderations of parliamentary pri"ilee to which + ha"e referred would undoubtedly seem toe3tend to !ri"ate Bill procedure @ and the authorities to which my noble and learned friends ha"ead"erted are clearly contrary to the Respondents submissions. What was said in ?dinburh H=aleith Railway Co. ".Wauchope 7%&'/8 & Cl. H 9. A%; seems to me to be particularly apposite and authoritati"e4 e"enthouh counsel there did not finally "enture to arue that the "alidity of a pro"ision in a pri"ate#ct could be impuned on the round that it had been obtained by fraud) the point was formallybefore the


16/18


Moreo"er) the distinction that the Respondent souht to draw between public and pri"ate #cts of!arliament breas down when one considers that there is a third) intermediate) class ofproceedins in !arliament between !u=lic and !ri"ate Bills5namely) and /A of the and %'.

UK


17/18


,he Court miht) + thin) ha"e well been *ustified in striin out pararaphs > and ' of the#mended Reply on the round that they contained alleations of fraud which were based on afalse hypothesis and were patently misconcei"ed. But as this point has not hitherto been taenwe must deal with the appeal on the footin that in enactin section %& of the #ct !arliament wasmisled by fraudulent misrepresentations made by the Board throuh its ser"ants and aents.?"en if one maes that assumption + am clearly of opinion that the pararaphs in $uestion

should be struc out. ,he sheet anchor of the Respondents arument is) of course) the decisionof this L.,. 0'/8 which were also relied on by the Respondent) all related to ?state #cts.Such #cts5dealin with the property of pri"ate indi"iduals5were common in the %&th and %2thcenturies but ha"e now become rare owin to the powers to deal with settled estates i"en tolimited owners by the Settled Land #cts and to the powers now i"en to the Court by theariation of ,rusts #ct) %2(&. ,o-day such #cts are only called for where the property in $uestionhas been itself settled by #ct of !arliament.

,he pro"isions contained in such an #ct) obtained at the instance of some of those interested inthe Settled ?state) are ob"iously analoous to those contained in a disposition inter partes and ifit were the law that) as Blacstone suests 7see ol. /) p. >'(8 a !ersonal #ct can be 6 relie"edaainst when 6 obtained upon fraudulent suestions 6) it would not follow in the least that suchan #ct as the British Railways #ct) %20&) could be 6 relie"ed 6 aainst6 *ust because it happenedto be a pri"ate and not a public #ct.But + aree with your Lordships that the rule laid down in such cases as ?dinburh and =aleithRailway Company ". Wauchope & C. H 9. A%; and Lee ". Bude and ,orrinton Railway L.R. 0C.!. (A0 is applicable to all #cts of !arliament includin ?state #cts. + also aree with all that hasbeen said by my noble and learned friend. Lord Reid) with reard to Mcenie ". Stewart. We do

not now what were the reasons for the decision 4 the case could easily ha"e been decided onconstruction @ and it should be treated as ha"in been so decided. + would say the same ofBiddulph ". Biddulph. Green ". Mortimer does not touch the present problem at all. !arliamentcould ha"e empowered the Courts to mae the life estate inalienable @ but what it did do was toempower the Courts to mae it inalienable 6 so far as the rules of law and e$uity and the*urisdiction 6 and the authority of the Court admit6. ,hat) as Lord Campbell pointed out) wasabsurd since the rules of law and e$uity and the *urisdiction and authority of the Court did noti"e the Court any such power.Before us Counsel for the Respondent submitted that e"en if section %& on its true constructione3tinuished the rihts of re"erter and the Courts were not entitled to 6 o behind the #ct 6 butwere bound to accept that as a result of it the Board as from the date of its passin held the lealestate in fee simple in the lands in $uestion free from the riht of re"erter yet any ad*oinin ownerwho chose to do so could) on proof of the facts alleed in pararaphs > and ' of the Reply)obtain a declaration that the Board held the leal estate in the strip of line ad*oinin his land ontrust for him.,his arument adopts the e3planation of Mcenie ". Stewart i"en by


18/18


that the Court will not en$uire into what passed in the course of the passae of the Bill throuh!arliament5must be e$ually fatal to any attempt to establish the alleed personal e$uity. + areeentirely with e"erythin which has been said by my noble and learned friend) Lord Wilberforce)on this aspect of the case.!araraph > of the #mended Reply professes to relate only to construction) but the fact that it isstruc out because the matters alleed in it are not admissible in considerin the true

construction of the #ct will not preclude the Respondent from ad"ancin any aruments onconstruction which are leitimately open to him@ the striin out of pararaphs > and ' does)howe"er) entail the conse$uence that the application for disco"ery made on &th =ecember) %2A%)should be dismissed.%2.+ would add in conclusion that the fact that + thin) as + stated at the beinnin of this speech) thatthe alleations of fraud made by the Respondent are misconcei"ed does not mean that + alsothin that his sense of rie"ance that !arliament should by a !ri"ate #ct ha"e summarilydepri"ed the ad*oinin owners of their rihts to re"erter without notice to them is neces- sarilywholly un*ustified. We do not and cannot now whether the $uestion of i"in him notice was

raised durin the passae of the Bill. +t may ha"e escaped attention @ on the other hand)!arliament may ha"e addressed its mind to the point and decided that in all the circumstancesthe i"in of notice was not necessary. ,hat is a matter into which it is impossible for us toen$uire. + would allow the appeal.

UK

british railways board v pickin.doc

Documents