페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

sent

ions.

Chapter in it had passed into the hands of the promoters. On the
XXVII.

other hand, the owners of land which was proposed to be
taken by a bill but which was subject to compulsory powers
of purchase, though not actually taken, by another com-
pany, have been held to have a locus standi, as not being
yet divested of their rights as owners.?
The rights of the representatives of a particular trade, Locus

u standi of business, or interest to be heard against a bill are dealt bodies with in the two following standing orders, Nos. 133 & 133A.

wa ing Trades,

&c.; and of “Where any body of persons corporate or unincorporated suffi- Associaciently representing a particular trade, business, or interest, in any tions. district to which any railway bill relates, petition against the bill, S. 0. 1 alleging that such trade, business, or interest will be injuriously affected by the rates and fares proposed to be authorized by the bill, or is injuriously affected by the rates and fares already authorized by Acts relating to the railway undertaking, it shall be competent to the referees on private bills, if they think fit, to admit the petitioners to be heard, on such allegation, against the bill, or any part thereof, or against the rates and fares authorized by the said Acts, or any of them. The provisions of this Order relative to rates and fares already authorized, extend to traders and freighters, and to a single trader, in any case where a locus standi would have been allowed to them or him, if this Order had not been made. Nothing in this Order sball authorize the referees to entertain any question within the jurisdiction of the Railway Commissioners."

" Where any society or association sufficiently representing a trade, s. 0. 133A. business, or interest in any district to which any bill relates, petition against the bill, alleging that such trade, business, or interest will be injuriously affected by the provisions contained therein, it shall be competent to the referees on private bills, if they think fit, to admit the petitioners to be heard on such allegations against the bill or any part thereof." 3

11 C. & R. 219-20. 21 C. & R. 207.

3 S.O. No. 133 was first passed in 1884 (139 C. J. 349). But amend. ments, allowing a greater latitude, were made in it in 1903 (158 C. J. 369); and in 1904 the further S. O. No. 133A was passed (159 C. J. 414). Earlier decisions of the referees had already extended the rights of traders to be heard before a com. mittee, a locus standi having been given in some cases to an individual firm (1 O. & R. 107. 180, 210; R.

& M. 184. 236 ; R. & S. 50 (petition of Sharp & Co. against the N. British Ry, Bill, 1890), 316. 346; and cf. 2 O. & R. 25). For decisions of the referees, prior to 1903, regard. ing the locus standi of steamship owners' associations against bills conferring steamboat powers upon a railway company, cf. 2 C. & S. 59; 3 C. & R. 415; R. & M. 100. 243; R. & S. 115. 199. In 1890, warehousemen in Glasgow, petitioning against the North British, &c., Railway Bill, were refused a locus

Locus standi on

In accordance with the general principle that, to entitle Chapter

XXVII. the ground them to a locus standi, petitioners should prove that their of contingent

property or interests are directly or specially affected by a clamage. bill, petitioners whose property was not taken, but who

apprehended injury by reason of the contiguity of a rail-
way, have been refused a hearing. In some exceptional
cases, however, of special danger, disturbance, or injury,
petitioners so affected have been allowed a hearing;? and
owners and occupiers of houses who complained that their
property, although untouched, would be injured or shaken
by a proposed line, have been heard and have obtained
protective clauses. The owners of property, in proximity
to a railway proposed to be worked by electricity, claiming
to be heard on the ground of injury from vibration, have
in some cases been granted,4 and in others been refused, a
locus standi. It has been laid down as a general principle
that a landowner or inhabitant cannot claim a locus standi
on the ground that proposed works will destroy the amenity
or salubrity of a place ;6 but in two cases, occurring in
1891, petitioners claiming to be heard upon such grounds
were granted a locus standi.? The owners of glass-works,
and the owners of business premises, who apprehended
injury from the obstruction of light by proposed works,

standi by the court, a petition which
was also presented by the corpora.
tion, and which was not objected to,
being held to cover their case. But
the question of their right to be
heard having been raised in the
House upon a motion for an in-
struction to the referees, the court
reheard the case and granted them
a locus standi (R. & S. 50-53; 373
H. D. 3 s. 1181; and cf. infra, p. 785).
For decisions of the referees since
1903 onthe locus standi of petitioners
claiming to be heard (1) as Traders,
see 2 S. A. 205. 225, 229 (disallow.
ed); (2) as Association, see 2 S. A.
221 (allowed), 228 (disallowed).

i Smethurst, 26-28, App. 101. 102. 117; 1 C. & S. App. 45; 1 C. & R. 80; 2 ib. 38. 124. 249; 3 ib. 86; R.

& M. 208; 2 S. & A. 123-4. 157.

:1 C. & S. 40-44; 2 C. & R. 2. 14. 75.

32 C. & S. 189; 1 C. & R. 46; R. & S. 44; 2 S. & A. 90.

"2 S. & A. 100, 126. 128. 52 S. & A. 65. 192. 61 C. & R. 203; 3 ib. 30. 125; 1 S. & A. 264. 330; 2 ib. 157.

- Local Government Provisional Order Bill, 1891 (R. & S. 127). Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway (Extension to London) Bill, 1891 (R. & S. 130 et seq.). In the latter case a locus standi was granted to owners, occupiers, &c., whose property was not taken, but who claimed that its amenity would be injured by the proposed line, now known as the Great Central Railway.

Chapter have also been heard, their case being considered suffi-
XXVII.

ciently exceptional to justify a departure from the general
principle of previous decisions,-viz. that landowners can
only be heard when their land is actually taken or inter-
fered with. The trustees of a hospital who alleged that,
although no land was to be taken by a railway, great injury
would arise to the inmates from the noise and vibration of
passing trains, have been refused a locus standi.? The
trustees of a church, alleging that the services would be
interfered with by the proximity of a railway, have in one
case been refused, and in another been allowed, a hearing
upon that ground. In both cases they were allowed a
locus standi on the further ground of obstruction of access.3
In numerous cases, petitioners complaining of interference
with their access to their premises, or to the sea, or other
waterside, have been allowed a locus standi, although their
property was not directly affected. It has been held that
the displacement of population, involved by a bill, was not
a sufficient ground for allowing a school board to be heard
in opposition."
In the case of a consolidation bill, the whole subject Excep-

tional
being re-opened, a petitioner is entitled to be heard against cases of
the provisions of the Acts proposed to be consolidated. sta
But where no fresh powers affecting the property of a
petitioner are sought by a bill,” or where a petitioner is
affected, not by the bill, but by the provisions of a former
Act, his locus standi has been disallowed.

A telephone company, however, who alleged that the

andi.

i South Eastern Railway Bill, 1876, 1 C. & R. 258; and cf. R. & S. 213-4 ; 2 S. & A. 235-6.

North British Railway Bill, 1877 (2 C. & R. 54); London and North Western Railway Bill, 1889 (R. & M. 263). The petitioners in this case obtained a locus standi and a protective clause before a committee in the House of Lords.

32 C. & R. 249; R. & S. 139; and cf. 2 S. & A. 58. 235-6.

+ 2 C. & R. 139. 197; 3 ib. 60. 70. 226; R. & M. 46. 145; R. & S. 20.

23. 137-9. 151-2. 212; and cf, R. & M. 92; 2 S. & A. 210-12.

53 C. & R. 182. 185. And as to other and later cases where particular grounds, on which petitioners claimed a hearing, were not held to be sufficient for granting & locus standi, cf. 2 S. & A. 206. 214–16. 63 C. & R. 257.

: 2 C. & R. 207; R. & M. 26. 70; R. & S. 1. 56. 93. ·

& Suppl. to Votes, 1847, ii. 1070. 1113; 3 C. & R. 28. 58. 96. 98; R. & S. 208; 1 S. & A. 100 2 ib. 71. 230.

propi nquity of an electric tramway (authorized, but not Chapter

XXVII. made), would injure their work by induction, and who de- sired to ask for protective clauses in a bill for the extension of time for its completion, have been granted a locus standi on the ground of the change which had taken place in the scientific knowledge and practical application of electricity.

A locus standi has been granted to a petitioner, as owner of the soil, who objected to the proposed laying of a conduit pipe. The owners of mineral property have been allowed a locus standi as landowners,' and have been heard against the provisions of bills relating to tolls. Owners and occupiers of land in reasonable proximity to a canal, which it was proposed to stop up, have been allowed a locus standi ; 5 and petitioners using a canal for the purposes of traffic have claimed, sometimes successfully, and sometimes unsuccessfully,? to be heard against a bill for the purchase of the canal by a railway company. The owner of an equitable interest in land has been heard, where the legal estate was vested in trustees. It has been held that petitioners affected by an underpinning clause in an underground railway bill, although their property was outside the limits of deviation, were entitled to be heard.?

1 R. & S. 102. 167. 242; and 2 S. & A. 34; R. & S. 259 ; 2 S. & A. 77. But cf. also 2 S. & A. 62. 86. 98. A railway company, alleging injury to their wires, &c., by induction, have been heard against the proposed use of electrical powers upon tramways owned, or proposed to be purchased, by another company (R. & S. 242-5. 256-8). As to decisions on the locus standi of gas or water companies who alleged that they were insufficiently protected against damage from the powers sought in a tramways bill, cf. R. & S. 262, and 2 S. &A.60. 145 (locus st andi allowed): 2 S. & A. 1-3. 193. 236. 241 (locus standi disallowed); and 1 S. & A. 108. 282 (locus standi limited).

21 C. & S. 23, & App. 64; 1 C. & R. 148; 2 ib. 78; 2 S. & A. 227; and cf, 2 C. & S. 219; 2 S. & A.

235-6. A gas company have been
refused a locus standi on the ground
that they had not such an interest
in the soil occupied by their pipes as
to entitle them to be heard generally
as landowners (R. & S. 325). It has
also been held that an easement
over public roads for the purpose of
laying down pipes for statutory pur-
poses is not such an ownership or
occupation as confers the right to a
general locus standi (2 C. & S. 229;
and cf. 3 C. & R. 340).
31 C. & R. 221.

• Smethurst, App. 120; 2 C. & R.
34.
si C. & R. 215-6; 3 ib, 55.

1 C. & S. App. 66. 126. 11 C. & R. 150. 8 Smethurst, 17; 1 C. & R. 270. 32 C. & R. 193; 3 ib. 156; R. & S. 45.

Chapter A corporation who were promoting a bill to complete the
XXVII.

purchase of a property have been regarded for the purposes
of locus standi as its legal owner, and have been heard as
such against a bill which empowered a county council to
purchase part of the property. And a railway company
have been granted a limited locus standi against a bill
authorizing another company to take lands which the
petitioners had scheduled for the purposes of a bill that
they themselves were promoting. The lessees of a col-
liery have been heard against clauses, in a bill promoted
by a corporation, authorizing an enlargement of a reser-
voir which, they alleged, would be a source of increased
danger to life and property in their collieries. In the
case of bills for constructing sewage works, a locus standi
has been granted to owners in proximity to the proposed
site, although their property was not within the limits
entitling them to receive the notice necessary, with regard
to such bills, under standing order No. 15.4 In all such
exceptional cases, the referees determine-according to the
circumstances, which necessarily vary in each instance-
whether petitioners have such an interest as to entitle
them to be heard; or to what extent, and with what restric-
tions, they may claim a hearing.
In numerous cases, coming before the referees prior to Locus

standi
1902, of bills which affected river or other waters, a locus against
standi had already been given to millowners, the working bil
of whose mills would be affected by works proposed to be and water

supply. constructed above or below them ;5 and to riparian and other owners entitled to the use of river waters. And

ater

12 S. & A. 55 (Petition of Cor. poration of London against London County Council (General Powers) Bill, 1901). A railway company have been refused a locus standi as a landowner, against another company's bill, in respect of land which the petitioners had completed the arrangements for purchasing, on the ground that they had not actually entered into possession (2 S. & A.

144).

? 1 S. & A. 176. And cf. 2 ib. 91; 2 C. & S. 242. 3 R. & S. 320.

1 S. & A. 116; 2 ib. 16. 117. 52 C. & S. 50. 53; 1 C. & R. 3; 3 ib. 111; R. & M. 195 ; 1 S. & A. 334 ; and cf. also S. O. No. 14.

2 C. & R. 212 ; 3 ib. 477 ; 2 S. & A. 31, etc.

« 이전계속 »