Hammersmith Railway Co. v Brand
(1869) LR 4 House of Lords 17118691 min read
The case in brief30-second read
- Facts
- The defendant railway company operated under statutory authorisation. The claim concerned nuisance or damage connected to the specific manner of the railway's operation.
- Issue
- Whether statutory authorisation for a railway's general operation provides blanket protection against claims connected to the specific manner of its operation.
- Held
- Statutory authorisation protects the inevitable, inherent consequences of the specifically authorised activity.
- Principle
- Statutory authorisation for a general activity does not provide blanket immunity for every aspect of how that activity is conducted, particularly regarding matters within the defendant's genuine discretion.
Facts
- The defendant railway company operated under statutory authorisation
- The claim concerned nuisance or damage connected to the specific manner of the railway's operation
- The question was the extent to which statutory authorisation provided protection
Issue
- Whether statutory authorisation for a railway's general operation provides blanket protection against claims connected to the specific manner of its operation.
Held
- Statutory authorisation protects the inevitable, inherent consequences of the specifically authorised activity
- It does not necessarily extend to every aspect of how the activity is conducted, particularly where genuine discretion existed regarding implementation
- The scope of the defence must be assessed against what the statute specifically authorised, not treated as unlimited immunity
Ratio decidendi
Statutory authority as a defence is confined to the inevitable consequences of the specifically authorised activity, conducted as authorised. It does not extend to every consequence of how a company chooses to exercise genuine discretion in implementing that authorised activity.
Exam use
How to use it in an answer
- Part A: Limits on statutory authority defence; the distinction between absolute and conditional statutory authority.
- Part B: Pair with Vaughan v Taff Vale (1860) (complete defence for inevitable consequences) to show the spectrum.
- Key line: "Statutory authorisation does not provide blanket immunity for every manner of conducting the authorised activity."
Cite this
Citation
Hammersmith Railway Co. v. Brand (1869) LR 4 House of Lords 171Reported: (1869) LR 4 HL 171. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.