Cockburn CJ said: ‘These observations illustrate the question which is now before us, and make it clear that, if an act of parliament, by plain, unambiguous, positive enactment, affects the rights even of parties who were not before the House (those parties being clearly pointed out by the bill, and expressly excepted from the saving clause), it is not for a court of law to consider whether the forms of parliament have been pursued, whether those provisions which the wisdom of either House of Parliament has provided for the prevention of any deception on itself, or of injury to the rights of absent parties, have been followed: it is enough for us if the provisions of the act are clear, express, and positive: if they are, we have only to carry the act into effect.’
Cockburn CJ
[1859] EngR 694, (1859) 6 CB NS 1, (1859) 144 ER 350
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Pickin v British Railways Board HL 30-Jan-1974
Courts Not to Investigate Parliament’s Actions
It was alleged that the respondent had misled Parliament to secure the passing of a private Act. The claimant said that the land taken from him under the Act was no longer required, and that he should be entitled to have it returned.
Held: . .
Appeal from – The Earl Of Shrewsbury v Scott And Others CEC 18-Feb-1860
Judgment affirmed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 September 2021; Ref: scu.288046 br>