In construing a private statute, it should be viewed so as not to prevent persons carryong out otherwise lawful acts unless expressly so stated.
Scrutton LJ said that clear and unequivocal words were necessary to deprive persons of the power to do what they were doing for profit at the passing of the Act without anyone having the power of preventing them.
Greer LJ, dissenting said ‘There is a well-known canon of construction applicable to private Acts of Parliament that if the words used by the statute are ambiguous, the meaning that is most favourable to the public should be adopted; but I do not think that this has the effect of preventing the court from sayiong that if, when the whole of the statute in question is considered, it appears by necessary intendment that the privilege claimed was intended to be granted, the court should refuse to draw this inference because the Act does not contain express words creating the provilege claimed.’
Judges:
Scrutton LJ, Greer LJ (dissenting)
Citations:
(1929) 94 JP 10, [1929] 1 Ch 686, [1929] 98 LJ Ch 118, [1929] 140 LT 415, [1929] 93 JP 129, [1929] 27 LGR 264
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Bournemouth-Swanage Motor Road and Ferry Co v Harvey and Sons (No 2) CA 2-Jan-1929
The Company had constructed a jetty under powers granted by a private Act of Parliament. It asserted a claim to own the subsoil.
Held: It did so own the sub-soil and had the right under the statute to control who used the jetty. . .
Appeal from – Bournemouth-Swanage Motor Road and Ferry Co v Harvey and Sons HL 1930
The company had, under a private Act of Parliament, constructed a jetty and a roadway. They objected to the provision of similar services by the respondents
Held: Their appeal failed. An injunction against competition was refused. The Act did . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Transport
Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.272210
