ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

XXVII.

Chapter in it had passed into the hands of the promoters.1 On the 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 company, have been held to have a locus standi, as not being yet divested of their rights as owners.2

standi of

The rights of the representatives of a particular trade, Locus business, or interest to be heard against a bill are dealt bodies with in the two following standing orders, Nos. 133 & 133A. representing Trades,

&c.; and of

tions.

S. O. 133.

"Where any body of persons corporate or unincorporated suffi- Associaciently representing a particular trade, business, or interest, in any district to which any railway bill relates, petition against the bill, 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 shall authorize the referees to entertain any question within the jurisdiction of the Railway Commissioners."

"Where any society or association sufficiently representing a trade, S. 0.133▲. 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

1 1 C. & R. 219-20.

2 1 C. & R. 207.

3 S. O. No. 133 was first passed in 1884 (139 C. J. 349). But amendments, 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 committee, a locus standi having been given in some cases to an individual firm (1 C. & 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 C. & 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, ware-
housemen in Glasgow, petitioning
against the North British, &c.,
Railway Bill, were refused a locus

Locus standi on the ground of contingent damage.

XXVII.

In accordance with the general principle that, to entitle Chapter them to a locus standi, petitioners should prove that their property or interests are directly or specially affected by a bill, petitioners whose property was not taken, but who apprehended injury by reason of the contiguity of a railway, have been refused a hearing. In some exceptional cases, however, of special danger, disturbance, or injury, petitioners so affected have been allowed a hearing;2 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.3 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, and in others been refused,5 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; 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).

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

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

2 S. & A. 100. 126. 128. 5 2 S. & A. 65. 192.

61 C. & R. 203; 3 ib. 30. 125; 1 S. & A. 264. 330; 2 ib. 157.

7 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.

XXVII.

Chapter have also been heard, their case being considered sufficiently 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 interfered 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.2 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.5

tional

locus

In the case of a consolidation bill, the whole subject Excepbeing re-opened, a petitioner is entitled to be heard against cases of the provisions of the Acts proposed to be consolidated." standi. 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

8

Act, his locus standi has been disallowed.

A telephone company, however, who alleged that the

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

2 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.

5 3 C. & R. 182. 185. And as to
other and later cases where par-
ticular grounds, on which petitioners
claimed a hearing, were not held to
be sufficient for granting a 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. .

8 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.

XXVII.

propinquity of an electric tramway (authorized, but not Chapter made), would injure their work by induction, and who desired 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.1

5

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,3 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; 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.8 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).

2 1 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).
3 1 C. & R. 221.

34.

Smethurst, App. 120; 2 C. & R.

5 1 C. & R. 215-6; 3 ib. 55.
1 C. & S. App. 66. 126.

7 1 C. & R. 150.

8 Smethurst, 17; 1 C. & R. 270. 92 C. & R. 193; 3 ib. 156; R. & S. 45.

Chapter XXVII.

A corporation who were promoting a bill to complete the 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.1 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 colliery have been heard against clauses, in a bill promoted by a corporation, authorizing an enlargement of a reservoir which, they alleged, would be a source of increased. danger to life and property in their collieries.3 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. In all such exceptional cases, the referees determine-according to the circumstances, which necessarily vary in each instancewhether petitioners have such an interest as to entitle them to be heard; or to what extent, and with what restrictions, they may claim a hearing.

standi

against bills affect

In numerous cases, coming before the referees prior to Locus 1902, of bills which affected river or other waters, a locus standi had already been given to millowners, the working ing water 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.6 And

12 S. & A. 55 (Petition of Corporation 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).

21 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.

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

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »