Literal ruleRelaying repairingHouse of Lords

London and North Eastern Railway Co. v Berriman

[1946] Appeal Cases 27819461 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
Berriman, a signal fitter's labourer, was oiling the point rodding at West Parade Junction, Hull. He was struck and killed by a passing train on 26 December 1943. No lookout man had been posted.
Issue
Whether oiling and cleaning points falls within "relaying or repairing the permanent way" under the 1902 Rules.
Held
The words were given their ordinary meaning; oiling and cleaning did not fall within them.
Principle
"Relaying or repairing" the permanent way does not include routine maintenance (oiling points). Literal Rule applied strictly to deny compensation for a worker killed during maintenance work.
Cite this

Facts

  • Berriman, a signal fitter's labourer, was oiling the point rodding at West Parade Junction, Hull
  • He was struck and killed by a passing train on 26 December 1943
  • No lookout man had been posted
  • The Prevention of Accidents Rules 1902 required a lookout to be provided for men "relaying or repairing the permanent way"
  • Widow claimed compensation arguing the employer breached the statutory duty

Issue

  1. Whether oiling and cleaning points falls within "relaying or repairing the permanent way" under the 1902 Rules.

Held

  • The words were given their ordinary meaning; oiling and cleaning did not fall within them
  • Oiling is routine maintenance, not relaying or repairing
  • No statutory duty to post a lookout for maintenance workers
  • Compensation claim failed
  • Literal Rule applied strictly despite unjust result

Ratio decidendi

"Relaying or repairing" the permanent way bears its ordinary meaning and does not extend to routine maintenance such as oiling. The Literal Rule requires this strict reading even where it produces an unjust outcome.

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

  • The harshest Literal Rule illustration: worker dies, but literal reading denies compensation
  • Use to contrast with Mischief Rule (which would have asked: what mischief was the statute addressing?)
  • Exam trifecta: Whiteley (absurd acquittal) + Fisher (technical defence) + Berriman (unjust denial)
  • Key line: "In LNER v. Berriman (1946), the House of Lords held that oiling points is routine maintenance, not 'relaying or repairing,' and strictly applied the Literal Rule to deny the widow's compensation claim."

Cite this

Citation

London and North Eastern Railway Co. v. Berriman [1946] Appeal Cases 278

Reported: Partly verified (26 Oct 2026): English case, not on Indian Kanoon or sci.gov.in; checked against secondary web sources. [1946] AC 278 (HL, decided 21 January 1946).. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.