Pickin v British Railways Board

Facts

Pickin claimed an interest in land which, under earlier legislation, would have reverted to the owner of adjoining land when the railway ceased to use it. The British Railways Act 1968 (a private Act) provided that the land in question should remain vested in the Railways Board. Pickin alleged that the Board had fraudulently induced Parliament to pass the Act by failing to comply with the Standing Orders, including a requirement to give notice to those affected, and by misleading Parliament, so that the Act should not be given effect against him.

History

Pickin sued for a declaration. The Court of Appeal held that the claim could proceed, and the Board appealed to the House of Lords.

Issue

Whether a court may inquire into the manner in which a private Act of Parliament was passed, including allegations that Parliament was misled by fraud and that Standing Orders were not followed, in order to decide whether a part of the Act is effective.

Held

The appeal of the Board was allowed. The courts have no power to go behind an Act to examine the procedure by which it was passed or to treat it as ineffective because Parliament was misled, and the claim was struck out.

Ratio

• The courts will not question the validity of an Act of Parliament or inquire into the proceedings of Parliament that led to its enactment. An Act, including a private Act, takes effect according to its terms, and any complaint about how Parliament was misled is a matter for Parliament, not the courts.

The judgments

Key reasoning

• It has long been the practice of the courts to accept an Act as it appears on the Parliament Roll, and they do not examine the way in which Parliament reached its decision.
• To allow evidence of what was said or done in Parliament to impugn an Act would conflict with the exclusive control of Parliament over its own procedures, and with Article 9 of the Bill of Rights.
• If Parliament has been misled by a party, the remedy lies in Parliament, which can repeal the provision, and not in the courts.

Where it fits in the module

In the module on whether the judges can review the validity of Acts of Parliament, the case stands for the orthodox view that the courts cannot set aside primary legislation, even for procedural irregularity or fraud. The debate concerns the status of the enrolled Act rule against the claim in Jackson that courts may have a role in the common law constitution, the relationship with Article 9 of the Bill of Rights and the manner and form theory. Students should consider whether the decision stands for a rule of judicial recognition or a broader principle.

Criticisms

• The enrolled Act rule is justified by the historical practice of the courts and by respect for Parliament, but it leaves a person injured by a fraud on Parliament without a remedy, which sits uneasily with the rule of law.
• The decision treats a private Act, passed on the basis of information from a single party, in the same way as a public Act, although the risk of abuse is higher and the legislature is less able to detect it.
• The reasoning does not explain whether the rule is a rule of the common law that courts could modify, or a constitutional rule that the courts cannot change, and later dicta suggest the former.