British Railways Board and Another v Pickin [1974] 1 All ER 608

• Parliament made an act that prevented land reverting to landowners once a railway company who had compulsorily purchased the land, decided to discontinue the line, as had previously been the case.

• A landowner argued before HL that the act was invalid because the preamble to the act was false, notification hadn’t been given to landowners, and it took away his rights.

• HL dismissed his claim, saying that neither an act of parliament, nor a provision of an act, could be invalidated by the courts.

Lord Reid

• Said that parliamentary sovereignty prevented such an invalidation + that the courts should be careful not to cause conflict between themselves and parliament by assuming such a power (feeble view of courts’ role as a check on parliamentary power).

Lord Simon

• Said that if parliament had been defrauded into passing an act, it was for parliament to conduct an inquiry and, if they wish, to repeal the act: it was NOT the courts’ job. 

RELATED CASES

• R (Jackson) v Attorney General