Legal Case Summary
British Railways Board v Pickin [1974] AC 765
Validity of statute; private Act
Facts
A private Act of Parliament from 1836 said that if a railway line was abandoned, the land beneath the tracks should become the property of the owners of the adjoining lands. Another private Act in 1845 followed the same pattern. The railway lines in question later became the property of the British Railways Board who promoted another private Act, the British Railways Act 1968. The latter Act cancelled the 1836 Act and put the lands beneath the abandoned track in the hands of the Board. Pickin purchased land adjoining the land where the abandoned track lay.
Issues
Pickin sued the Board claiming that, based on the 1836 Act, part of the land beneath the abandoned track was lawfully his. The Board in turn argued that the 1968 Act – which in fact was promoted by the Board – invalidated the 1836 Act and that the land in question thus belonged to the Board. Pickin then raised the argument that the Board had misled Parliament by way of a false recital in 1968 private Act’s preamble.
Decision / Outcome
The House of Lords held that courts had to consider and apply Acts of Parliament. Thus, the validity of an Act could not be lawfully attacked by claiming that Parliament was misled (either by fraud or otherwise) during the course of the enacting of a piece of legislation. A claimant’s claim in equity could also not be based on the allegation that he suffered damage because of the fact that Parliament was misled by the other party. The courts should not interfere with or adjudicate how Parliament exercised its function when making its decision on a piece of legislation.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary remains accurate. British Railways Board v Pickin [1974] AC 765 continues to be good law and is a leading authority on the constitutional principle of parliamentary sovereignty and the enrolled Bill rule. Courts remain bound by this principle: they will not look behind an Act of Parliament to examine how it was passed, whether Parliament was misled, or whether proper procedures were followed. The principle has been consistently affirmed in subsequent case law, including R (Jackson) v Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56, in which the House of Lords treated Pickin as settled authority, though some of their Lordships made wider observations about the theoretical limits of parliamentary sovereignty. Those observations were obiter and do not alter the binding rule established in Pickin. There have been no statutory changes affecting the core legal principle described in this article.
