“Courts cannot question the validity of Acts of Parliament once properly enacted.”
Pickin challenged the British Railways Act 1968, alleging that British Railways had misled Parliament during the bill's passage by concealing their intention to close a railway line affecting his property rights.
Whether courts could examine the validity of an Act of Parliament based on allegations that Parliament had been misled during the legislative process.
The House of Lords held that courts have no jurisdiction to question the validity of Acts of Parliament. Pickin's challenge was struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.
This case modernly reaffirmed fundamental constitutional principles about parliamentary sovereignty and the enrolled bill rule. It clarified that these principles apply even when Parliament may have been misled, cementing the separation of powers in UK constitutional law.
You're reading the free summary of Pickin v British Railways Board. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
Pickin v British Railways Board [1974] AC 765
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.