Sean Drummond v Keolis Amey Docklands Ltd
[2023] EWHC 853 (KB)
West Coast Railway Company Ltd, R (on the application of) v Office of Rail and Road
22 December 2023
[2023] EWHC 3338 (Admin)
High Court
A heritage railway company sued the rail safety regulator because they refused to let them keep using older, less-safe train doors. The judge ruled in favor of the regulator, saying the company didn't prove their doors were safe enough and that the cost of upgrading wasn't a good enough reason to risk passenger safety.
Key Facts
- •West Coast Railway Company Ltd (WCRR), the largest UK heritage train tour operator, challenged the Office of Rail and Road's (ORR) refusal to exempt its trains from a regulation requiring central door locking (CDL).
- •WCRR's trains use Mark I rolling stock with hinged doors and droplight windows, employing a secondary door locking system operated by trained stewards.
- •The Railway Safety Regulations 1999 prohibit operating rolling stock with hinged doors unless they have CDL, but allow exemptions.
- •The ORR refused WCRR's exemption application, citing insufficient evidence of equivalent safety to CDL and a lack of comprehensive risk assessment.
- •WCRR argued the ORR misinterpreted regulations, fettered its discretion, failed to consider relevant factors (including disproportionate costs), and acted irrationally, breaching Article 1 Protocol 1 of the ECHR.
- •Post-decision ORR inspections revealed safety issues on WCRR's Jacobite train, leading to temporary service suspensions; however, the court did not rely on these post-decision events.
Legal Principles
A public authority must use its discretion to promote the policy and objects of the legislation, not to thwart it.
Padfield v MAFF [1968] AC 998
In judicial review, the court does not assess the merits of a decision but whether it was a lawful exercise of the relevant public function.
R (Mott) v Environment Agency [2018] UKSC 10
Courts show judicial restraint when decisions involve complex technical matters within the defendant authority's expertise; the margin of appreciation is substantial.
R (Mott) v Environment Agency [2016] EWCA Civ 564
A public authority is entitled to have a policy on the exercise of its discretion, provided it doesn't 'shut its ears' to applications.
British Oxygen Co Ltd v Board of Trade [1971] AC 610
A public authority must not act incompatibly with Article 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR.
s.6(1), Human Rights Act 1998
Assessing A1P1 violation involves considering interference's nature, lawfulness, legitimate aim, and proportionality (fair balance between community interest and individual rights).
AXA General Insurance Ltd v HM Advocate [2012] 1 AC 868; Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury [2014] AC 700
A public authority must not act irrationally, including due to oppressiveness or disproportionate effects.
R (Khatun) v London Borough of Newham [2005] QB 37
Outcomes
The claim failed.
The ORR's decision was lawful. WCRR failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate equivalent safety to CDL, primarily due to an inadequate risk assessment and lack of information on staff training and monitoring. The cost of retrofitting CDL, while significant, was deemed not disproportionate considering the safety benefits and the ORR's willingness to allow a phased implementation.