페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

XXVII.

cases.

circumstances, after the time limited. Such notices may Chapter also be withdrawn by notice in writing to the clerk to

the referees.
Manner of On the day appointed for hearing any case before the
hearing
locus standi court of referees, it has to be proved that the notices of

objections have been duly served. If no one appears in
support of the petition, the locus standi of the petitioners
is disallowed. If the petitioners appear—their petition
against the preamble or clauses of the bill, the statement
of objections to their right to be heard, and the bill itself,
being before the court—the counsel for the petitioners sup-
ports their claim; and the counsel for the promoters is
heard in reply,—the speeches being thus limited to one on
cach side. For the purposes of argument on questions
of locus standi, the allegations of a petition are ordinarily
admitted: but where the rights of petitioners to be heard
depends upon special facts which are disputed, they may
be called upon to give primâ facie evidence in support of

their case.3 Peti.

Some petitioners pray to be heard against the preamble opposition and clauses of the bill; some against certain clauses only; indicated

and others pray for the insertion of protective clauses, or by their petitions. for compensation for damage which will arise under the

bill.

The locus standi of a petitioner is always limited to the points alleged in his petition. It is often still further limited by a decision of the court disallowing him a locus standi except against some, only, of those provisions to which he objects in the bill. In some cases the referees in allowing a general or “unlimited” locus standi

Locus standi limited.

i Permission granted, Rickards & Michael, Locus Standi Reports, 174 ; not granted, Rickards and Saunders, L. S. Reports, 11. 159.

? Smethurston Locus Standi, 8, App. 91.

3 Smethurst, 11, 12, App. 93; 1 Clifford & Stephens, L. S. Reports, App. 41; 3 Clifford & Rickards, 155. 316. 319; 1 Saunders & Austin, L. S. Reports, 294. After the

Petitioners have called evidence in support of their primâ facie case, the promoters are not permitted to call rebutting evidence, 1 S. & A. 197-8.

• In giving its decision in such cases the court limits the peti. tioner's locus standi, not to certain portions of his petition, but to certain portions of the bill. Cf. 2 Clifford & Rickards, L. S. Reports, 130; 2 Saunders & Austin, 191.

es.

Chapter against a bill, have left the relevancy of some of a
XXVII.

petitioner's allegations for the determination of the
committee.
Upon the commencement of their jurisdiction in 1865, Practice of

the court the referees took as the basis of their practice the prin- regarding

no locus standi ciples and precedents contained in the decisions, regarding the locus standi of petitioners, that had previously been given by individual committees; and they reduced to a system, as far as possible, the rules affecting the rights of petitioners to be heard. In the course of time this system has been modified, not only by the interpretations and decisions of the court itself, but by the additions and alterations that have been made in the standing orders relating to locus standi. Generally speaking, it may be said that petitioners whose property or interests are proved to be directly and specially affected by a bill have a locus standi before the committee. But so many exceptional circumstances naturally arise in each instance that, in the following pages, nothing beyond a very brief review can be given of the more important cases determined by the court. For more detailed information, the reader must consult the invaluable series of " Locus Standi Reports,” to which frequent references are here given.

It has been laid down, as an established practice, that Landthe owners of land proposed to be compulsorily taken-ocusers and also the lessees and occupiers, on whom, as on owners, standi. the notices required by the standing orders of both houses are to be served-should always be heard against both the

owners

i 1 Clifford & Rickards, 47; 2 ib. 130. And cf. Rickards and Saunders, L. S. Reports, 117-120. 330; 2 Saunders and Austin, 182.

? For reports of cases of locus standi decided by the Court of Referees in 1865 (tbe first year of its jurisdic. tion), and in 1866, cf. Smethurst's Treatise on Locus Standi (2nd edit., 1867), and for cases from 18671872, cf, Clifford & Stephens (C. & S.), Practice of the Court of Referees with Reports of Cases, in 2 vols.

(vol. i. 1867-69: vol. ii. 1870-72):
from 1873-1884, cf. Clifford and
Rickards (C. & R.), Locus Standi
Reports, in 3 vols. (vol. i. 1873-76 :
vol. ii. 1877-80 : vol. iii. 1881-84);
from 1885-1889, cf. Rickards and
Michael (R. & M.), L. S. Reports;
from 1890-1894, cf. Rickards and
Saunders (R. & S.) L. S. Reports;
and from 1895-1904, cf. Saunders &
Austin (S. & A.), L. S. Reports, in 2
vols. (vol. i. 1895-99 : vol. ii.
1900-04).

preamble and the clauses of a bill. The same unlimited Chapter

XXVII. (“landowner's ") locus standi has also been granted to the owner of minerals, and to the lord of a manor, claiming to be heard against bills affecting their property or rights : to magistrates and councillors having an interest in the lands or a right to gravel on the foreshore, within their burgh or barony ;4 and to other petitioners who have been held to “have an interest” in land proposed to be taken.5 A railway company whose property is proposed to be taken

has been allowed the same rights of locus standi as a S. 0. 132. private landowner, and standing order No. 132 provides

that, in the case of every railway bill which

“Contains provisions for taking or using any part of the lands, railway, stations or accommodation of another company, or for running engines or carriages upon or across the same, or for granting other facilities, such company shall be entitled to be heard upon their petition against such provisions or7 against the Preamble and Clauses of such Bill." 8

Even in the case of an omnibus bill, or a bill in which the promoters seek powers for a number of various objects or different undertakings, the general locus standi allowed to a petitioner as a landowner has enabled him, however little of

? It has been ruled that a petitioner whose petition alleges that his land is taken and who prays to be heard against the preamble and clauses of the bill, may be heard against the bill generally, even though his petition does not allege that he will be injured, or that the railway proposed by a bill is un necessary, and though it contains no reference to the preamble except in the prayer of the petition. Cf. Resolution of General Committee on Railway, &c., Bills, 1861 ; and i C. & R. 207; 3 ib. 301. 457.

2 1 C. & R. 221; 3 ib. 46.

3 Smethurst, App. 95; 1 C. & S. 39; 2 ib. 89; 2 C. & R. 109. 212.

*1 S. & A. 15. The owner of the bed and foreshore of a river, al. though the right of their user was vested in river commissioners, has

been granted a locus standi as a landowner, in addition to the commissioners themselves, against a bill for the laying of electric cables, 2 S. & A. 184.

51 C. & R. 158; R. & S. 329-330 ; and R. & M. 313.

London & North Western Rail. way Bill, 1868, 1 C. & S. App. 62. 63 (the post case), 3 C. & R. 481.

: The words italicised were not contained in the original standing order, but were inserted in 1871. 126 C. J. 421 ; and cf. 2 C. & S. 256.

8 2 C. & S. 256 ; 1 C. & R. 7. 19. 206; 3 ib. 136. 201. 301. 367 ; R. & M. 89. 98. 139 (Cathcart, &c., Rail. way Bill), 311; R. & S. 117. In the following cases a “limited ” locus standi was allowed: 3 C. & R. 142. 177. 326. 341; R. & M. 252 ; R. & S. 14. 152.

Chapter his land were taken, to be heard against the whole bill;1
XXVII.

and in cases where the promoters have desired more
particularly to exclude him from being heard on any save
certain provisions of a bill, the referees have refused so
to limit his locus standi.? But in 1891, and again in 1903,
when granting the usual “landowner's locus standi,
against the whole of a railway (various powers) bill, to a
petitioner whose land was taken under a part only of the
bill, the court expressly declared that, in doing so, they
did not intend to influence the committee, who would deal
with the petitioner's interests as affected by the bill, in
judging what might or might not be considered as
material. And in 1902, the locus standi of a petitioning
landowner, a railway company, against an improvement
(omnibus) bill promoted by an urban district council, was
limited to those parts of the bill under which the com-
pany's land was taken or their interests affected.
In the case of a bill for the abandonment of a railway Locus

standi of not completed within the time for which compulsory i powers had been granted, the owner of land upon the against

o abandonline has not been allowed a locus standi 5 except in some ment, excases where it has been shown that he has sustained time, and special damage. Lessees of minerals beneath a line revival of

powers, proposed to be abandoned have been refused a locus bills. standi.?

andowner

" It has been held that a land. owner has a general locus standi against an omnibus railway bill, however limited his interest, Lon. don & North Western Railway Bill, 1868, 1 C. & S. App. 62. 63 (known as the “ post " case); and 2 C. & S. 37; R. & S. 117, &c. (petitions of railway companies as landowners); 1 C. & R. 221 ; 2 ib. 130; R. & S. 67; 2 S. & A. 182-3, &c. (petitions of other landowners); and cf. Select Committee on Private Bill Business, 1863, pp. 105. 113 (Evidence). A landowner whose land was to be taken has been held to have a general locus standi against a general im: provement bill, 1 O. & S. 19 App.

49; 1 C. & R. 158; 2 C. & R. 6970, &c.

.2 C. & R. 130; 2 S. & A. 15. 123. 182, 230 (and cf. 2 ib. 73-75).

3 R. & S. 117 (railway company petitioning against an omnibus railway bill); 2 S. & A. 182 (London County Council, as landowner, against Metropolitan District Rail. way (Various Powers) Bill); and cf. 1 C. & R. 47-48; R. & S. 330 Cardiff, &c., Bill).

42 S. & A. 104.

51 C. & S. 27; 2 C. & R. 40; 3 ib. 78. 399. 403.

61 C. & S. 28; 2 C. & R. 231 ; R. & M. 139.

:1 C. & S. 28-29.

In the case of a bill for an extension of time, the owners Chapter

XXVII. of land authorized by a former Act to be taken, and already contracted for with the company, have been refused a hearing, on the ground that they were merely creditors. But a landowner with whom a company had contracted to restore land not required for the railway, within a certain time, has been allowed a hearing against a clause extending the time for completing the line, so as to enable him to seek the insertion of a special saving clause for his contract;3 and landowners who had special agreements with a company, or who had received no notice to treat for the purchase of their land under compulsory powers, have obtained their locus standi against extension of time. And where a company applied for an extension of time for purchasing land and completing works, and it was shown that nothing had been done for the execution of the line, and that the company were under financial embarrassments, landowners on the line have been allowed a hearing.5

In the case of a bill providing, not for an extension of time, but for a revival of the expired powers of a company, a locus standi has been allowed to another railway company 6 or a landowner' as if the bill were the original bill; but it has been refused in a similar case when, the money for the purchase of his property under the original Act having been paid into court, the petitioner's legal interest

04.

1 As to the locus standi of municipal authorities against extension of time (and other) bills, cf. S. O. 134. 134a, and 1348, infra, pp. 7757, and R. & S. 124-6. 227, &c.

2 Smethurst, App. 110; 1 C. & S. 31 App. 37; 3 O. & R. 315; R. & M. 133; R. & S. 330. Cf. as an exceptional case, R. & S. 224.

3 1 C. & S. App. 29. 32.

+ 2 C. & R. 100; R. & M. 67. 113; 1 S. &'A. 1. Cf., however, R. & M. 59. 187; R. & S. 330–333. The referees have held that the owner of certain premises, who, having received notice, had engaged other premises and had applied to the Court of Queen's Bench for a

mandamus to compel the company to complete its contract, had a right to be heard against the clause of a bill which extended the time for completing a railway. A railway company claiming to be heard as an owner of land for which they had received no notice to treat, have been refused a locus standi against an extension of time bill, no notice to treat being necessary when an easement only is taken. 2 S. & A. 39.

51 C. & S. 28. 34; R. & M. 89; and cf. 1 S. & A. 261.

R. & M. 89.

1 C. & S. 36, App. 35; 1 S. & A. 261.

« 이전계속 »