Pickin v British Railways Board (British Railways Board v Pickin)

The courts must construe and give effect to every Act of Parliament, whether public or private. They cannot investigate its passage, alleged procedural irregularities, false recitals, or allegations that Parliament was misled into enacting it. An equitable claim based on the same alleged misleading cannot indirectly nullify or frustrate an enactment. The remedy for any parliamentary wrong lies with Parliament, not the courts.

Pickin claimed a right of reverter in closed railway land under section 259 of the Bristol and Exeter Railway Act, 1836. The British Railways Board contended that section 18 of the British Railways Act, 1968 had removed that right.

To meet that defence, Pickin alleged that the Board had fraudulently misled Parliament and failed to comply with parliamentary standing orders when obtaining the 1968 Act. A Master struck out the relevant paragraphs of the reply. Chapman J upheld that order, but the Court of Appeal allowed a further appeal and held that the issue should proceed to trial.

The House considered whether a court could disregard, or neutralise in equity, an enacted provision of a private Act because of alleged fraud or irregularity in its parliamentary passage.

1. Appeal allowed unanimously. The House restored Chapman J’s order striking out paragraphs 3 and 4 of the amended reply. The allegations disclosed no arguable claim capable of going to trial.

2. Lord Reid, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest and Lord Wilberforce held that the judicial function is to construe and apply Parliament’s enactments. Once a Bill has passed both Houses and received Royal Assent, a court cannot investigate how it was introduced or passed, whether standing orders were observed, whether recitals were false, or whether Parliament was misled. This applies equally to public and private Acts. The proper course is to give the Act effect according to its construction.

3. Lord Morris added that defective recitals may assist construction where appropriate, but cannot warrant disregarding, varying or disobeying clear enacting words. The finality of enactment remains unless Parliament amends or repeals the Act.

4. Lord Wilberforce held that the proposed equitable claim was equally untenable. Equity may prevent statutory formalities from being used as an instrument of fraud in an otherwise valid personal claim. It cannot impose a trust or personal obligation where the alleged equity depends upon proving that Parliament was misled into passing the very provision whose effect is challenged.

5. The House rejected Mackenzie v. Stewart as authority for an exception. It was properly understood as a case about the construction and application of an estate Act, not the invalidity or ineffectiveness of an Act of Parliament. The established principle in Edinburgh and Dalkeith Railway Co. v. Wauchope 8 Cl. & F. 710 and later authorities governed the case.

6. Lord Simon of Glaisdale further held that a fair trial of the pleaded allegations would impeach or question parliamentary proceedings, contrary to parliamentary privilege and article 9 of the Bill of Rights, 1688. Lord Cross of Chelsea added that striking out the paragraphs required dismissal of the related discovery application. Pickin remained free to advance any legitimate argument about the construction of section 18.

• House of Lords: Allowed the British Railways Board’s appeal and restored the order striking out the challenged paragraphs of the reply.
• Court of Appeal: Allowed Pickin’s further appeal on 3 October 1972 and held that the issue raised by the challenged pleading should proceed to trial.
• High Court: Chapman J dismissed Pickin’s appeal from the Master’s order.
• Master in Chambers: On 21 February 1972, struck out paragraphs 3 and 4 of the amended reply under Order 18, rule 19.