## Facts

- The case arose from a dispute over ownership of land previously used for railway purposes, governed by a series of private Acts of Parliament originating in 1836 and reiterated in 1845.
- These private Acts provided that abandoned railway land would transfer to adjoining landowners.
- The British Railways Board (BRB) later acquired the relevant railway lines and promoted the British Railways Act 1968, which reversed the earlier provisions and vested ownership of such land in the BRB.
- Mr. Pickin, an adjoining landowner, claimed entitlement to the land under the earlier Acts, while the BRB relied on the 1968 Act.
- Pickin challenged the validity of the 1968 Act, alleging that the BRB misled Parliament with a false recital in the preamble to the Act.
- He sought a declaration that the 1968 Act was invalid and that the BRB should hold the disputed land on trust for him.

## Issues

1. Whether courts have the authority to question the validity of an Act of Parliament on the ground that Parliament was misled during the legislative process.
2. Whether a distinction exists between private and public Acts, permitting judicial scrutiny of private Acts for alleged procedural impropriety.
3. Whether the BRB's alleged misrepresentation to Parliament could result in judicial interference with statutory validity.

## Decision

- The House of Lords held that courts cannot examine parliamentary proceedings or the validity of an Act of Parliament based on alleged misrepresentation or procedural irregularity.
- The decision of the Court of Appeal, which had favored Mr. Pickin’s argument for judicial scrutiny, was overturned.
- The Lords confirmed that, once an Act has passed both Houses and received Royal Assent, courts must accept its validity and may only interpret and apply its provisions.
- The House of Lords rejected any distinction between private and public Acts regarding judicial examination of legislative procedures.
- The claim that the BRB's conduct could affect the statutory validity of the 1968 Act was dismissed as beyond judicial competence.

## Legal Principles

- Parliamentary sovereignty requires that courts may not question the validity of an Act of Parliament once it has been properly enacted.
- The judiciary is restricted from investigating or reviewing parliamentary procedure or proceedings.
- There is no judicial power to invalidate legislation on the ground of fraud or misrepresentation in parliamentary preambles or processes.
- The traditional separation of powers between Parliament and the courts is upheld, preserving mutual respect and specific roles for each branch.
- Legal precedent, including Edinburgh & Dalkeith Railway Co v Wauchope (1842) and Manuel v Attorney General [1983] Ch 77, supports the principle that courts are not to assess the manner of parliamentary functions.

## Conclusion

The House of Lords decision in Pickin v British Railways Board established the principle that courts lack jurisdiction to question the validity of an Act of Parliament on procedural or fraudulent grounds, reinforcing parliamentary sovereignty and delineating the limits of judicial intervention in legislative processes.

Pickin v British Railways Board [1974] AC 765 (HL)