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 not confer on the ferry company an exclusive right of ferry. The respondents had in fact for many years previously carried passengers over a relate route.
After quoting the relevant section Lord Macmillan, with whom the other members of the House concurred, said: ‘Now this section does not purport to grant a franchise of ferry. It merely empowers the company to establish a ferry service. It imposes no obligation on the company whatever; it does not require the company to provide any service. The terms of the section are permissive not obligatory, enabling not mandatory. If the company chose not to provide a ferry service no member of the public could compel it to do so. In short the position of the company is comparable to that of a railway company which has obtained power to construct and work a new line but is under no obligation to the public either to construct it or to work it when constructed’
Judges:
Lord Macmillan
Citations:
[1930] AC 549, 99 LJ Ch 337, 143 LT 313, 46 TLR 439, 28 LGR 351
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Bournemouth-Swanage Motor Road and Ferry Co v Harvey and Sons CA 1929
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice, Transport, Commercial
Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.272212