« 이전계속 »
Chapter in it had passed into the hands of the promoters. On the
other hand, the owners of land which was proposed to be
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-
standi by the court, a petition which
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-
ciently exceptional to justify a departure from the general
A telephone company, however, who alleged that the
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
• Smethurst, App. 120; 2 C. & R.
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
purchase of a property have been regarded for the purposes
supply. constructed above or below them ;5 and to riparian and other owners entitled to the use of river waters. And
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.
? 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.