C. A. 1905 March 29. [IN THE COURT OF APPEAL.] PICKFORDS, LIMITED v. LONDON AND NORTH Railway-Rate for Carriage of Goods-Rate-book-Railway Commissioners A railway company, against whom an order has been made by the Railway Commissioners under the Regulation of Railways Act, 1873, s. 14, is bound to specify the particular amounts charged in a rate for the carriage of goods in respect of each of the services performed by them other than conveyance on their line. Colman v. Great Eastern Ry. Co., (1882) 4 Ry. & Can. Cas. 108, and Birchgrove Steel Co. v. Midland Ry. Co., (1887) 5 Ry. & Can. Cas. 229, approved. APPEAL from the decision of the Railway and Canal Commission (Bigham J., Sir Frederick Peel, and Viscount Cobham) as after mentioned. Pickfords, Limited, who were carriers, had made an application to the Railway Commissioners complaining of an undue preference by the railway company of their own traffic as against that of Pickfords, Limited, and asking for an order under the Regulation of Railways Act, 1873, s. 14, requiring the railway company to distinguish in the rate-books kept by them at their Broad Street station in London and their goods station at Bradford how much of each of the rates mentioned in a schedule to the application was for conveyance on their railway, and how much was for other expenses, specifying the nature and detail of such other expenses; and the Commissioners had made the order for which the applicants asked. The railway company had, in pursuance of the order of the Commissioners, given particulars to Pickfords, Limited, in respect of each of the rates in the schedule, of which particulars C. A. the following may be taken as an example: 1905 PICKFORDS, LIMITED v. LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY. It appeared that Pickfords, Limited, were in the habit of doing their own cartage to and from railway stations. They were not satisfied with the particulars given by the railway company in pursuance of the order of the Commissioners, because they did not specify the particular amounts charged by the railway company in respect of each of the other expenses mentioned in the rate, and consequently they could not ascertain therefrom what rebate ought to be made to them in respect of collection and delivery. They therefore made a further application to the Railway Commissioners on the ground that the railway company had not sufficiently complied with their order under the Regulation of Railways Act, 1873, s. 14. Bigham J., in delivering the judgment of the Commissioners, said that but for previous decisions of the Railway Commissioners on the subject he should have been of opinion that there had been a sufficient compliance by the railway company with the order; but that the present Master of the Rolls, then Collins J., when presiding over the Railway Commission, had laid it down, in the case of Didcot, Newbury and Southampton Ry. Co. v. Great Western Ry. Co. (1), that the decisions of the Commission from its commencement, without reference to the change which had taken place in its constitution, ought to (1) (1896) 9 Ry. & Can. Cas. 210, at p. 229. C. A. 1905 PICKFORDS, v. LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY. be regarded as binding upon it; and he therefore held, in conformity with the previous decision of the Commission, in Colman v. Great Eastern Ry. (1), that the railway company had not sufficiently complied with the order of the Commissioners. Cripps, K.C., and W. J. Noble (Moon, K.C., with them), for the railway company. The present application is under s. 14 of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1873, and it is with the provisions of that section alone that the Court has to deal on this appeal. That section relates only to the particulars which the railway company may be ordered to insert in the ratebooks which they are bound to publish for the information of the public at large. It is submitted that, upon the true construction of the section, the railway company are not bound to state the amount charged for each of the services rendered by them other than conveyance. The words "specifying the nature and detail of such other expenses" in the section have not the effect contended for by the applicants. They are merely equivalent to "specifying the nature and detail of the services rendered other than conveyance on the railway." It would be very difficult, if not impossible, in the case of every rate in the company's rate-books to split up the portion of the rate charged for such services into component parts; for the amount charged is not, as a matter of business, arrived at by aggregating particular amounts charged for the different services respectively, but is charged as a lump sum to include all those services. It would enormously increase the size and complexity of the company's rate-books, if they could be compelled to give in them such particulars as are asked for in respect of every rate in their books and with regard to all their stations; which is what they are bound to do, if the construction of s. 14 contended for by the applicants is correct. It never can have been contemplated by the Legislature that the railway company should have to do this under s. 14. The applicants might obtain the information necessary for their purposes under other enactments, as for instance s. 33 of the (1) 4 Ry. & Can. Cas. 108. C. A. 1905 LIMITED v. LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY. Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888. The question at present before the Court is not as to the applicants' right to this information as between themselves and the company; it is not PICKFORDS, a question as to that right inter partes. The question is, under s. 14, whether the railway company can be compelled to publish such information in their rate-books. It may be that the railway company must make such a dissection of a rate as is asked for, roughly, and as best they can, for the purposes of a particular question arising inter partes; but it really would not, practically speaking, be possible to make it hypothetically, with regard to a great number of rates, in the rate-book published for the information of the public. If the information required by the applicants could be obtained under s. 14 of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1873, it would not have been necessary to pass the enactments contained in s. 33 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888. [They cited London and North Western Ry. Co. v. Lee (1); Pidcock & Co. v. Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Ry. Co. (2)] Foote, K.C., and R. Whitehead (Balfour Browne, K.C., with them), for the applicants. The particulars given by the railway company give the applicants no effective information whatever. It was held by the Railway Commissioners as long ago as 1882 in Colman v. Great Eastern Ry. Co. (3), and again in Birchgrove Steel Co. v. Midland Ry. Co. (4), that, under an order made in pursuance of s. 14, the railway company must state the particular amounts charged in respect of each of the services rendered other than conveyance. The object of the section is that the applicant may be able to ascertain whether an undue preference is being given to other traders. The particulars given by the company in this case do not enable the applicants to do so. The applicants are carriers, who do their own cartage to and from stations, and they want to know whether they receive an adequate rebate in respect of cartage. Inasmuch as the particulars given do not shew what is charged in the rate for cartage, they do not assist (1) (1891) 7 Times L. R. 603. (3) 4 Ry. & Can. Cas. 108. C. A. 1905 LIMITED the applicants in this respect. No such difficulties as are suggested by the company will arise from the construction of PICKFORDS, the section contended for by the applicants. The Commissioners have a discretion as to whether they will make an order LONDON under the section, and they are not bound to order the WESTERN particulars required by an applicant to be inserted in the ratebooks of the company if they think it unreasonable and unnecessary to do so, provided the company will give the necessary information to the applicants. v. AND NORTH RAILWAY. [They also cited Tomlinson v. London and North Western Ry. Co. (1); Coxon v. North Eastern Ry. Co. (2); Berry v. London, Chatham and Dover Ry. Co. (3); Liverpool Corn Traders' Association v. London and North Western Ry. Co. (4)] Cripps, K.C., in reply. COLLINS M.R. This is an appeal against a decision of the Railway Commissioners upon an application by traders against a railway company under the Regulation of Railways Act, 1873, s. 14, for an order requiring the company to disintegrate certain rates in their rate-book and to distinguish the amount charged for conveyance on the railway from the amount charged for other expenses, specifying not only the nature of the other charges, but also the particular amounts charged in respect of each of them. Sect. 14 is as follows: "Every railway company and canal company shall keep at each of their stations and wharves a book or books shewing every rate for the time being charged for the carriage of traffic, other than passengers and their luggage, from that station or wharf to any place to which they book, including any rates charged under any special contract, and stating the distance from that station or wharf of every station, wharf, siding, or place to which any such rate is charged." Up to that point, the section states the whole of the obligation which is in general imposed upon the company in respect of the matters to be set forth in their rate-books; and it is not until some further conditions come into play that any larger (1) (1890) 7 Ry. & Can. Cas. 22. (3) (1884) 4 Ry. & Can. Cas. 310. (4) (1890) 7 Ry. & Can. Cas. 125. |