Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Judges
- LORDS DECISIONS
- LORDS DECISIONS >>
- LORDS
- LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SELBORNE)LORD BLACKBURN LORD WATSON.
- LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SELBORNE):
- LORDS, THE QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER, UNDER THE ACTS OF PARLIAMENT TO WHICH YOUR LORDSHIPS' ATTENTION HAS BEEN CALLED, THE RESPONDENT COMPANY IS AUTHORIZED AND EMPOWERED TO LET FOR HIRE TO THE SOUTHEND COMPANY LOCOMOTIVE POWER AND ROLLING STOCK. THE COMPANY CLAIMS TO BE SO ENTITLED. THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS AND LORD JUSTICE BAGGALLAY THOUGHT THAT IT WAS NOT SO AUTHORIZED; BUT LORDS JUSTICES JAMES AND BRAMWELL THOUGHT OTHERWISE, AND THEY DISCHARGED THE ORDER FOR AN INJUNCTION WHICH THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS HAD MADE. THE PRESENT APPEAL TA YOUR LORDSHIPS IS FROM THAT DECISION.
- LORDSHIPS WILL NOT NOW RECEDE FROM ANYTHING THAT WAS DETERMINED IN THE ASHBURY RAILWAY COMPANY V. RICHE 7 H. L. 653. IT APPEARS TO ME TO BE IMPORTANT THAT THE DOCTRINE OF ULTR� VIRES, AS IT WAS EXPLAINED IN THAT CASE, SHOULD BE MAINTAINED. BUT I AGREE WITH LORD JUSTICE JAMES THAT THIS DOCTRINE OUGHT TO BE REASONABLY, AND NOT UNREASONABLY, UNDERSTOOD AND APPLIED, AND THAT WHATEVER MAY FAIRLY BE REGARDED AS INCIDENTAL TO, OR CONSEQUENTIAL UPON, THOSE THINGS WHICH THE LEGISLATURE HAS AUTHORIZED, OUGHT NOT (UNLESS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED) TO BE HELD, BY JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION, TO BE ULTR� VIRES. IN THE PRESENT CASE I THINK, WITH THE COURT BELOW, THAT THE ACTS WHICH THE INFORMATION WAS FILED TO RESTRAIN ARE NOT ULTR� VIRES OF THE DEFENDANT COMPANY. BUT I COME TO THAT CONCLUSION, NOT ON THE GROUND THAT THEY ARE SUCH ACTS, ON THE BORDER LINE BETWEEN AUTHORITY AND NO AUTHORITY, AS MAY REASONABLY BE THOUGHT INCIDENTAL TO THE EXERCISE OF POWERS EXPRESSLY GIVEN, BUT BECAUSE I THINK THAT THEY ARE EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED BY THE 14TH SECTION OF THE ACT OF 1863. IT IS INSISTED BY APPELLANTS' COUNSEL THAT THE 14TH SECTION OF THE ACT OF 1863 AUTHORIZES ONLY AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE GREAT EASTERN COMPANY AND THE LONDON AND BLACKWALL COMPANY, INTER SE; AND THAT, RELATING AS IT DOES TO THE "EXTENSION," OR SOUTHEND RAILWAY, AS WELL AS TO THE RAILWAYS OF THOSE TWO COMPANIES, THEY COULD MAKE NO SUCH AGREEMENTS UNTIL THEY HAD OTHERWISE ACQUIRED AN INTEREST, SUFFICIENT TO GIVE EFFECT TO THEM, IN THE EXTENSION RAILWAY; AND THAT THEY COULD ONLY ACQUIRE SUCH AN INTEREST BY TAKING A LEASE, OR A TRANSFER OF THE EXISTING LEASE, OF THAT LINE. THE APPELLANTS, THEREFORE, ASK YOUR LORDSHIPS TO READ THIS SECTION AS IF, AFTER THE WORDS "THE TWO COMPANIES," WITH WHICH IT BEGINS, THESE ADDITIONAL WORDS WERE CONTAINED IN IT, "IN THE EVENT OF A LEASE OR A TRANSFER OF THE EXISTING LEASE OF THE EXTENSION RAILWAY BEING TAKEN BY THEM, OR EITHER OF THEM;" THIS BEING (AS THEY SAY) NECESSARILY IMPLIED.
- LORDSHIPS TO PLACE UPON THAT SECTION IS PROPER TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE EXPRESSED INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE. IN THE PREAMBLE THE EXISTING LEASE, THE EXISTING WORKING ARRANGEMENTS, AND THE PROPORTIONATE DIVISION OF TOLLS, &C., AND OF DEDUCTIONS FOR EXPENSES, ARE REFERRED TO AS THREE DISTINCT THINGS: AND THEN IT IS RECITED TO BE EXPEDIENT, THAT THE SOUTHEND COMPANY, THE LESSEES, AND THE GREAT EASTERN AND THE LONDON AND BLACKWALL RAILWAY COMPANIES, SHOULD BE ENABLED TO AGREE UPON "SUCH ALTERATIONS," IN EACH OF THESE THREE THINGS, (VIZ., FIRST, "THE TERMS OF THE LEASE;" SECONDLY, "THE ARRANGEMENTS FOR WORKING THE RAILWAY;" AND THIRDLY, "THE APPORTIONMENT OF THE RECEIPTS AND EXPENSES,") "AS BY THIS ACT AUTHORIZED." IT IS THEN FARTHER, AND AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT PURPOSE OF THE ACT, RECITED TO BE EXPEDIENT TO EMPOWER THE GREAT EASTERN AND LONDON AND BLACKWALL COMPANIES, JOINTLY OR SEVERALLY, TO TAKE A LEASE OR TRANSFER OF THE EXISTING LEASE OF THE SOUTHEND RAILWAY, "UPON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS BY THIS ACT AUTHORIZED." THE PLAIN OBJECT OF THE 14TH SECTION IS TO AUTHORIZE NEW AGREEMENTS, GENERALLY, AS TO WORKING ARRANGEMENTS, AND AS TO THE APPORTIONMENT OF RECEIPTS AND EXPENSES. SUCH NEW AGREEMENTS, AS TO "WORKING ARRANGEMENTS," ARE NOWHERE ELSE IN THE ACT EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED.
- LORDSHIPS THAT THE APPEAL BE DISMISSED.
- LORD BLACKBURN:
- LORDS, I AM ALSO OF OPINION THAT THE ORDER BELOW WAS RIGHT, AND THAT THE APPEAL SHOULD BE DISMISSED WITH COSTS. THERE HAVE BEEN THREE POINTS ON WHICH THE COURT BELOW DECIDED, AND ON TWO OF THEM I DO NOT THINK IT NECESSARY TO EXPRESS ANY OPINION. BY THAT I DO NOT MEAN TO BE UNDERSTOOD OR SUPPOSED TO SAY THAT THEY WERE WRONG, BUT MERELY TO MEAN, LITERALLY, THE THING WHICH I SAY, THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO FORM, AND NOT BEING NECESSARY TO FORM, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO SUGGEST, ANY OPINION WHETHER THEY WERE RIGHT OR WRONG. I TAKE IT THAT, AS FAR AS THE MAIN POINT TO BE CONSIDERED IS CONCERNED, THIS HOUSE HAS NO MORE RIGHT THAN ANY OTHER TRIBUNAL TO DEPART FROM THE PRINCIPLE OF THE DECISIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN ALREADY ARRIVED AT; MORE PARTICULARLY I ALLUDE TO THE LAST CASE OF THE ASHBURY RAILWAY CARRIAGE AND IRON COMPANY V. RICHE 7 H. L. 653. THAT CASE APPEARS TO ME TO DECIDE AT ALL EVENTS THIS, THAT WHERE THERE IS AN ACT OF PARLIAMENT CREATING A CORPORATION FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND GIVING IT POWERS FOR THAT PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WHAT IT DOES NOT EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIEDLY AUTHORIZE IS TO BE TAKEN TO BE PROHIBITED; AND, CONSEQUENTLY, THAT THE GREAT EASTERN COMPANY, CREATED BY ACT OF PARLIAMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF WORKING A LINE OF RAILWAY, IS PROHIBITED FROM DOING ANYTHING THAT WOULD NOT BE WITHIN THAT PURPOSE.
- LORDS, I QUITE AGREE WITH WHAT LORD JUSTICE JAMES HAS SAID ON THIS FIRST POINT AS TO PROHIBITION, THAT THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE INCIDENT TO, AND MAY REASONABLY AND PROPERLY BE DONE UNDER THE MAIN PURPOSE, THOUGH THEY MAY NOT BE LITERALLY WITHIN IT, WOULD NOT BE PROHIBITED. BUT THE POINT ON WHICH I DESIRE TO SAY THAT I NEITHER FORM NOR EXPRESS ANY OPINION, IS WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT BELOW MIGHT BE RIGHT IN SAYING, ON THE QUESTION TO WHICH THE INJUNCTION WAS DIRECTED, NAMELY, THE LENDING OR MANUFACTURING OF ROLLING STOCK FOR THE PURPOSE OF LENDING IT TO THE TILBURY COMPANY, THAT THAT WAS PERMITTED IN THE PARTICULAR LOCAL INSTANCE OF THE TILBURY RAILWAY COMPANY. I AGREE WITH MY NOBLE AND LEARNED FRIEND ON THE WOOLSACK IN THINKING, WHEN WE LOOK AT THE ACT OF PARLIAMENT, THAT THE LEGISLATURE IN THIS CASE HAS, NOT MERELY IMPLIEDLY, BUT EXPRESSLY, AUTHORIZED THE DIRECTORS OF THE GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY TO DO ALL THAT THEY HAVE DONE, NAMELY, TO ENTER INTO ARRANGEMENTS WITH THE TILBURY COMPANY RESPECTING THE WORKING OF THAT LINE, BY WHICH THEY WERE TO SUPPLY THAT LINE WITH ALL THE LOCOMOTIVE POWER, CARRIAGES, AND OTHER ROLLING STOCK WHICH WERE REQUIRED FOR WORKING THAT LINE. I THINK THAT IS NOT MERELY IMPLIEDLY AUTHORIZED, BUT IS EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED, BY THE ACT OF PARLIAMENT IN QUESTION, 26 & 27 VICT. C. 69, AND PARTICULARLY BY THE 14TH SECTION.
- LORDS, PASSING FROM THE PREAMBLE, THE EARLIER SECTIONS DOWN TO THE 13TH CONTAIN NOTHING EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZING ANY ALTERATION IN THE ARRANGEMENTS. IT HAS BEEN ATTEMPTED TO BE ARGUED THAT THE 4TH SECTION DOES THIS IMPLIEDLY, BUT THERE IS NOTHING CERTAINLY POINTED TO THIS EFFECT. THEN COMES THE 14TH SECTION, AND IT SAYS: "THE TWO COMPANIES"--THAT IS THE EASTERN COUNTIES AND THE LONDON AND BLACKWALL COMPANIES--"MAY ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS IN RESPECT TO THE WORKING, MAINTENANCE, AND MANAGEMENT OF THE EXTENSION RAILWAY, OR ANY PART THEREOF." NOW THAT SEEMS TO ME DISTINCTLY TO MEAN, FOLLOWING UP THE PREAMBLE, THAT IT IS DESIRABLE THAT THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE SUCH ALTERATIONS IN THE ARRANGEMENTS AS THE TWO COMPANIES MAY AGREE UPON. WHAT ALTERATIONS ARE THESE? THAT THE TWO COMPANIES MAY ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THE WORKING. I WILL LEAVE THE OTHER POINT OUT OF THE WAY FOR THE MOMENT. ENTER INTO ARRANGEMENTS WITH WHOM? CERTAINLY THEY CANNOT ALTER THE WORKING WHILST THE LINE IS IN THE HANDS OF THE LESSEES WITHOUT ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE LESSEES. IF IT IS IN THE ACTUAL OCCUPATION OF THE SOUTHEND RAILWAY COMPANY ITSELF, THEY CANNOT ALTER THE ARRANGEMENTS WITHOUT ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THAT COMPANY. THEREFORE IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE NATURAL EFFECT, TAKING THE ORDINARY MEANING OF THE WORDS, WOULD BE THAT THE TWO COMPANIES ARE AUTHORIZED TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS WITH THOSE WHO WOULD BE THE NECESSARY PARTIES TO IT; AND I SHOULD THINK, WITHOUT MORE, THAT THAT WOULD NECESSARILY IMPLY THAT THE PARTY WITH WHOM THEY WERE TO MAKE THE AGREEMENT HAD AUTHORITY TO MAKE IT; BUT I MUST OWN, NOTWITHSTANDING WHAT MR. KAY SAID IN HIS REPLY, THAT IT DOES NOT STRIKE ME THAT THE SOUTHEND COMPANY NEEDED ANY AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO ANY AGREEMENTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF WORKING THE LINE. I QUITE AGREE THAT A COMPANY CANNOT MAKE A LEASE WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF PARLIAMENT. THAT HAS BEEN EXPRESSLY DECIDED, AND I QUITE AGREE THAT WHERE AN AGREEMENT UNDER THE SHAPE AND COLOUR OF A WORKING AGREEMENT REALLY AMOUNTS TO A LEASE, SO AS TO BE A DELEGATION OF THE WHOLE CONCERN AND ALL ITS POWERS, THAT IS AS OPERATIVE AS A LEASE ITSELF. BUT I DO NOT THINK THAT THE AGREEMENTS THAT ARE HERE POINTED TO, AND THE AGREEMENTS THAT WERE ACTUALLY MADE, DO IN THE SLIGHTEST DEGREE AMOUNT TO A LEASE. I CAN SEE NO REASON WHY THE SOUTHEND COMPANY MIGHT NOT MAKE AN AGREEMENT WITH AN INDIVIDUAL, AND SAY, INSTEAD OF OUR BUYING AND MAKING AND KEEPING LOCOMOTIVE ENGINES OF OUR OWN, WE WILL CONTRACT WITH YOU THAT YOU SHALL SUPPLY LOCOMOTIVE ENGINES, AND INSTEAD OF OUR BUYING AND BECOMING POSSESSORS OF CARRIAGES OF OUR OWN, WE WILL HIRE THEM; OR WHY THEY MIGHT NOT SAY, INSTEAD OF OURSELVES KEEPING UP AND MAINTAINING OUR OWN RAILWAY, WE WILL MAKE AN AGREEMENT WITH YOU, A CONTRACTOR, WHO SHALL KEEP UP THE RAILWAY AND MAINTAIN IT. THIS DOES NOT AMOUNT TO DELEGATING THE POWERS OF THE COMPANY; IT DOES NOT AMOUNT TO DOING ANYTHING EXTRANEOUS TO THE POWERS WHICH THE COMPANY HAS OBTAINED, AND I CANNOT SEE THAT IT WOULD NEED PARLIAMENTARY AUTHORITY TO ENABLE THEM TO DO ANY ONE OF THESE THINGS. I CANNOT HELP THINKING THAT THE FALLACY OF THE ARGUMENT THERE IS, THAT IT SUPPOSES THAT WHILST THE EASTERN COUNTIES AND THE LONDON AND BLACKWALL RAILWAY COMPANIES REQUIRED PARLIAMENTARY AUTHORITY TO APPLY THEIR FUNDS FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUPPLYING LOCOMOTIVE ENGINES, IT FOLLOWS THAT THE SOUTHEND COMPANY WOULD HAVE REQUIRED PARLIAMENTARY AUTHORITY BEFORE THEY PAID FOR THE HIRING OF THOSE ENGINES.
- LORDSHIPS TO COME TO, AND WHICH I BELIEVE THE HOUSE WILL COME TO, THAT SECT. 14 EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZES THE COMPANY TO DO ALL THAT IT HAS DONE, IT IS QUITE UNNECESSARY TO DECIDE ANYTHING ON THAT LAST POINT, ON WHICH THEREFORE I NEITHER EXPRESS NOR FORM ANY OPINION.
- LORD WATSON:
- LORDS, THE MAIN QUESTION IN THIS APPEAL IS, WHETHER IT WAS ULTR� VIRES OF THE RESPONDENTS TO LET FOR HIRE TO THE LONDON, TILBURY, AND SOUTHEND RAILWAY COMPANY, ROLLING STOCK AND LOCOMOTIVE POWER UPON THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS EMBODIED IN AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO COMPANIES DATED THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 1876. IF THAT QUESTION BE DECIDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, THE POINT WHICH HAS BEEN SO FULLY ARGUED IN REGARD TO THE POWER OF HER MAJESTY'S ATTORNEY-GENERAL DOES NOT ARISE FOR DECISION IN THE CASE.
- LORDS, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO DECIDE THESE VARIOUS QUESTIONS, BECAUSE I AGREE WITH YOUR LORDSHIPS, AND THE MAJORITY OF THE COURT OF APPEAL, IN THINKING THAT THE REQUIRED POWER IS CONFERRED UPON THE RESPONDENTS IN EXPRESS TERMS BY THE LONDON, TILBURY, AND SOUTHEND RAILWAY ACT OF 1863.
- LORDSHIPS THAT SUCH A POWER ON THE PART OF THE SOUTHEND COMPANY IS FAIRLY DERIVABLE FROM THESE PROVISIONS WHICH GIVE AUTHORITY TO THE SOUTHEND AND LONDON AND BLACKWALL COMPANIES, WHEN TAKEN IN CONNECTION WITH THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT.
- LORDSHIPS HAVE EXPRESSED.
See more information ...
Click here to read the full judgment
Attorney-General & Anor v. Great Eastern Railway Company
Smart Summary
Factual and Procedural Background
The case concerns an attempt by the Appellants (acting on the relation of a private individual) to restrain Company A—a statutory railway company—from hiring out its locomotive power and rolling stock to Company B, a neighbouring railway undertaking. The Master of the Rolls originally granted an injunction, holding the arrangement ultra vires. A divided Court of Appeal discharged that injunction: Judge James and Judge Bramwell formed the majority; Judge Baggallay dissented. The present appeal to the House of Lords is from that appellate decision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, under the relevant Acts of Parliament—particularly section 14 of the 1863 Act—Company A possesses express or implied statutory authority to let locomotive power and rolling stock for hire to Company B.
- Consequently, whether such hiring is ultra vires and susceptible to restraint by injunction.
- (Raised but ultimately unnecessary) Whether the Attorney-General may, in the public interest, pursue an injunction of this kind.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- Section 14 authorises agreements only inter se between Company A and Company C (a separate railway), and only after they become lessees of the extension line; it does not empower them to contract directly with Company B.
- Absent such authority, the hiring of rolling stock constitutes a departure from the objects for which Company A was incorporated and is therefore ultra vires under the doctrine affirmed in Company D v. Riche.
Respondent's Arguments
- The 1863 Act, and section 14 in particular, expressly permits Company A to enter “agreements with respect to the working, maintenance and management” of the extension railway, which naturally includes supplying rolling stock and motive power.
- Even if the authority were not express, such hiring is incidental to the statutory object of working neighbouring railways and is therefore within the company’s powers.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Company D v. Riche (1875) 7 H.L. 653 |
Establishes the doctrine of ultra vires: acts outside a company’s express or implied objects are prohibited. |
The House affirmed the doctrine but held it inapplicable because section 14 furnished express authority for the disputed transactions. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Judge Selborne (Lord Chancellor) delivered the principal opinion:
- Reaffirmed the importance of the ultra vires doctrine but cautioned that it must be “reasonably, and not unreasonably, understood and applied.”
- Found that section 14 of the 1863 Act expressly empowers “the two companies” to make agreements about “the working of the extension railway,” a phrase wide enough to cover the provision of rolling stock and locomotive power to Company B.
- Rejected the Appellants’ request to imply restrictive words into section 14; the statute is “sensible and operative without them.”
- Read the preamble and section 15 as confirming that Company B is likewise authorised to concur in such agreements.
Judge Blackburn concurred:
- Accepted without reservation the binding force of Company D v. Riche.
- Held it “not merely impliedly, but expressly” authorised by section 14 for Company A to supply locomotives and rolling stock to Company B.
- Considered it unnecessary to opine on ancillary questions, such as the Attorney-General’s standing, once express authority was found.
Judge Watson also concurred:
- Applied the same principle that every act not warranted by statute is prohibited.
- Determined that the natural meaning of section 14 confers the necessary authority and that no contextual limitation requires a narrower reading.
- Concluded that Company B possesses implied statutory capacity to be a party to such agreements.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED; ORDER OF THE COURT OF APPEAL AFFIRMED.
Immediate effect: the injunction is dissolved and Company A may continue to hire locomotive power and rolling stock to Company B. Broader implications: while reaffirming the ultra vires doctrine, the House of Lords clarified that express statutory language—and, by extension, arrangements fairly incidental to authorised purposes—will prevail over an unduly narrow reading of corporate powers. No new precedent was announced regarding the Attorney-General’s role, which remained undecided.
Click here to read the full judgment