Hammersmith Railway Co. v. Brand

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

1. 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.