Why is it whenever people try to justify Southern's position using the NRCOC they conveniently abbreviate the definition of a train company? Here it is in full:
So, correct me if I'm wrong, but there is only one company granted a passenger licence by the ORR, and that is Southern Railway Limited. There is no further definition of company so we have to resort to the legal definition which is that which requires registration at Companies House and submission of accounts etc. There is only one company running trains branded as both Southern and Gatwick Express. Therefore tickets restricted to that company (holding a passenger licence ...) must be valid on any of their trains.
You could rephrase their actual definition
"Train Company means a company operating passenger railway services which is required to apply these Conditions to its tickets under a condition of the Passenger Licence granted to it by the Office of Rail Regulation."
as
"Train Company means a company operating passenger railway services with a Passenger Licence granted to it by the Office of Rail Regulation which is required to apply these Conditions to its tickets."
In this case the intent would be abundantly clear that a 'Train Company is a company with a Passenger Licence granted to it.', which is the definition relied upon by MikeWh et al.
However they have not phrased it thus.
Instead the definition is effectively only:
'Train Company means a company operating passenger railway services'
Which doesn't really take us any further, and the rest of the sentence is informative rather than definitive.
(You could refer to Fowler's Modern English Usage at this point, on the difference between a restrictive and non-restrictive relative clause. The use of 'which' implies a non-restrictive relative clause (non-defining), however the absence of a comma before it implies that it is just the common misuse of 'which' for 'that' and is in fact a restrictive (defining) relative clause, but it's not wholly fruitful to do so....)
You hold that we should interpret 'company' a body registered at Companies House.
I think that is rather a narrow definition, but it is one that could stand in the absence of further evidence or alternative meanings.
In fact the OED says
"company
1. a commercial business:
e.g. a shipping company"
Gatwick Express is very clearly a commercial business, with as separate a branding, identity, etc. from Southern, as FCC has from Southern. The distribution of the profits or accounts is not relevant - most people would not say that Pizza Hut and KFC are the same 'company', even though they are both in fact trading names of Yum Brands, or that The Guardian and Autotrader are the same company (again, same legal company behind them).
Given that the definition of 'Train Company' is in fact only 'a company operating passenger railway services', which is almost useless, we continue reading in hope of further clarification.
'A list of these companies can be found in Appendix C. “Train Companies” means all or more than one of these Companies;'
Ok, so we in fact have a complete list of 'Train Companies' provided.
So how can we possibly argue that our own definition of 'company' should override their list?
The document lists 'these companies'. It adds at the bottom that a current list is on the NR website.
Here it is:
http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/tocs_maps/tocs/
Surprise surprise, Gatwick Express is also there.
Given that the contract clearly lists the 'Train Companies' (capitalization theirs), arguing about the definition of 'company's is plainly futile.
If they intended that Southern and Gatwick Express were one Train Company, they would have written:
"Southern Railway Limited (trading as Southern and Gatwick Express)"
But they didn't, they list two entries - Southern and GatEx.
Trying to split hairs over the definition of 'company' within the Train Company definition when the contract very clearly lists the actual Train Companies is ridiculous.
