ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

S. O. 134D.

Locus standi

the right of owners of surface waters to be heard as land- Chapter owners has long been established.1

In the case of a proposed abstraction of underground water by a waterworks bill, the general rule has been not to allow a locus standi to petitioners whose water supply might be affected, unless evidence was forthcoming to prove that the underground water flowed in a well-defined channel.3

By standing order No. 134D, which was passed in 1902, it is now provided that

"Where any owner, lessee, or occupier, or where any conservancy or other authority charged with the control of river or other waters, petitions against a bill alleging that under its provisions any water or water supply of which they may legally avail themselves will be diminished or injuriously affected, it shall be competent to the referees on private bills, if they think fit, to admit the petitioners to be heard against the bill or any part thereof."

In the case of amalgamation bills a larger latitude than against usual is generally allowed to opponents. The general tion bills. ground upon which petitioners have been admitted to

amalgama

oppose amalgamation bills is that the amalgamation itself
will injuriously affect them, and not that they can show
any grievance resulting from past legislation."

Numerous questions have arisen in regard to the locus
standi of railway companies in opposing bills for the amal-
gamation of other companies; and such locus standi has
been admitted or refused, according to the degree in
which the interests of the opposing companies have been
affected.

1 1 C. & S. 24, etc.

2 Chasemore v. Richards, 7 H. L. Cas. 349; and 2 C. & S. 199; 3 C. & R. 239; R. & M. 95; and 1 S. & A. 134.

33 C. & R. 179. 385. 477; 1 S. & A. 252.

2 S. & A. 79. 80. 88. 177 (locus standi allowed); 2 S. & A. 162 (limited locus standi allowed); 2 S. & A. 205. 207. 227 (locus standi disallowed).

[ocr errors][merged small]

R. 240-247; 3 ib. 58. 97. 404; R. &
S. 240. 334; 1 S. & A. 90. 173; and
2 ib. 113. 139.

Vide Report of joint committee
of Lords and Commons, of 1872, on
Railway Amalgamation.

Smethurst, App. 163; 1 C. & S. App. 100; 2 C. & R.172. 243; 3 ib. 143. 145. 306; R. & M. 177; R. & S. 334; 1 S. & A. 31.

Smethurst, App. 136. 138; 1 C. & S. App. 101; 2 C. & R. 36-103. 299; 3 ib. 57. 58. 88. 107. 404; R. & M. 255; 1 S. & A. 173.

XXVII.

Chapter
XXVII.

The locus standi of petitioners against bills for the amalgamation of canal companies, of dock companies, of canal with dock companies, of canal or dock companies with railway companies, of tramway companies, of gas companies, and of water companies, has also been dealt with by the referees.1

standi

on the

ground of

S. O. 129.

It was formerly held, as a parliamentary rule, that com- Locus petition did not confer a locus standi: but in course of time this rule was considerably relaxed, and numerous excep- Competions were, in practice, admitted; and under a standing tition. order No. 129, originally passed in 1853, petitioners have generally been admitted to be heard against a bill on the ground of competition, the referees, in the exercise of their discretion under this standing order, allowing 2 or refusing a locus standi, according to their opinion of the extent and directness of the competition in respect of which the petitioners claim to be heard. In cases where it was only

1 1 C. & R. 73 (canal); 3 C. & R. 15. 319 (docks); 1 C. & R. 28; 1 C. & R. 112; R. & S. 217, and 1 S. & A. 145 (docks and railway); 2 C. & S. 218; 1 C. & R. 141 (gas); 3 C. & R. 38 (tramways); 1 C. & R. 59; 2 C. & R. 307 (water).

2 Locus standi allowed: To railway companies, dock owners, &c., against railway, dock, &c., bills (3 C. & R. 371; R. & M. 87; 2 S. & A. 52. 224). To steam tramway companies, &c., against railway bills (3 C. & R. 285. 471). To railway companies against tramways, steam tramways, or electric tramways bills (2 S. & A. 57; 3 C. & R. 455; 1 S. & A. 242; and 2 ib.23.118. 245). To omnibus companies against tramways bills (1 C. & S. App. 120; 2 C. & S. 89; 2 S. & A. 19). To owners of a bridge or pier against bills authorizing another bridge or pier (R. & S. 23; 2 S. & A. 5. 249). To gas, &c., companies (2 C. & S. 100; 1 C. & R. 50; 2 ib. 229; 3 ib. 109. 383; and (limited) 2 S. & A. 249). And to other petitioners (1 S. & A. 170. 202. 298; 2 ib. 81. 177. 201. 210).

3 Locus standi disallowed: To railway companies against railway or dock bills (2 S. & A. 160; 3 C. & R. 373, &c.), and against tramways or electric tramways bills (2 C. & S. 142; 1 C. & R. 13; 2 S. & A. 149; and R. & S. 242; 1 S. & A. 157.322). To hotel keepers (3 C. & R. 23) and to railway-carriage makers (2 C. & R. 50) against powers sought in a railway company's bill. To cab proprietors against a tramways bill (2 C. & R. 323). To owners of a bridge (2 C. & R. 89; R. & S. 36; 1 S. & A. 195). To gas or water companies (2 S. & A. 38. 194; 1 S. & A. 46). To electric supply companies (2 S. & A. 181. 189. 200. 226). And to other petitioners (3 C. & R. 131; 1 S. & A. 250; 2 S. & A. 29. 169. 233).

It has been held that the promoters of a bonâ fide application to a government department for a provisional order shall be entitled to a locus standi against a bill for a competing scheme, conditionally only on the application not being actually rejected before the hearing of the

3

Locus standi

against

proposed to improve an existing competition, a locus standi Chapter has not been allowed.1

3

2

In the case of a bill authorizing a railway company to own and run steamboats, the claim of steamship owners associations to a locus standi has frequently been considered by the referees; and a locus standi against such a bill has been granted, on the ground of competition, to other railway companies, to dock companies,5 to steampacket companies, and to merchants or shipowners trading to ports affected, but has been refused" where the interests of such petitioners were not considered to be sufficiently affected to entitle them to be heard on this ground.8

The locus standi of a railway company over whose line another company proposes to take running powers is running secured by standing order No. 132, already alluded to.9 provisions. But a railway company enjoying running powers over

[ocr errors]

powers

Locus

standi of "fron

another line has been refused a locus standi against the
concession of similar powers to a third company, 10 except
in some special cases; 11 and in cases where it has been
alleged that this concession was for the purposes of amal-
gamation or for competition, such locus standi has been
granted 12 or refused 13 according to the extent to which the
status of the petitioners was to be altered.

In the case of a tramways bill, the locus standi of the petitioners familiarly known as "frontagers" is dealt with by tagers standing order No. 135. The first portion of this order tramway provides that—

[ocr errors]

against a

bill.

S. O. 135.

bill in committee (1 C. & R. 234.
235; 3 ib. 100. 114; and cf. 1 S. &
A. 301; 2 ib. 248).

1 2 C. & R. 133. 279; 3 ib. 225.
357. 378; R. & M. 118. 197; R. & S.
243; 2 S. & A. 150.

2 Cf. supra, p. 767, note 3.

3 Cf. standing order No. 156 (infra, p. 795), as to the acquisition by railway companies of steam vessels and docks, &c.

1 S. & A. 229; 2 ib. 135.

5 R. & M. 270.

R. & S. 197; 2 S. & A. 107; and

cf. R. & M. 100.

7 R. & M. 241-2. 251. 270; and cf. R. & S. 346; 2 S. & A. 25. 216221. 223.

R. & M. 241. 270; R. & S. 111; 2 S. & A. 109. 115. 174,

• Supra, p. 764.

10 Smethurst, 56, et seq.; 1 C. & R.
172; 3 ib. 267. 299 (Eastbourne
Railway Bill); R. & S. 3; and cf.
also 1 S. & A. 90.

11 1 C. & R. 78. 96; R. & M. 62.
12 1 C. & S. App. 102; 1 C. & R.
173; 2 ib. 243.

13 2 C. & R. 103. 245; 3 ib. 57.88.
89.267.

XXVII.

Chapter "The owner, lessee, or occupier of any house, shop, or warehouse in XXVII. any street or road through which it is proposed to construct any tramway, and who alleges in any petition against a private bill or provisional order that the construction or use of the tramway proposed to be authorized thereby will injuriously affect him in the use or enjoyment of his premises, or in the conduct of his trade or business, shall be entitled to be heard on such allegations before any select committee to which such private bill, or the bill relating to such provisional order, is referred." 1

In 1903 a second and important provision was added to this standing order,2 empowering the referees—

"To admit the petitioners, being the owners, lessees, or occupiers of any house, shop, or warehouse having its access materially dependent on such street or road, and making the aforesaid allegations, to be heard against the bill, if they think fit." 3

In addition to the discretion vested in the referees by this concluding portion of standing order No. 135, and by standing orders Nos. 133, 133A, and 134D already alluded to, further discretionary powers regarding the locus standi of petitioners are conferred on the Court by the three following standing orders.

Standing order No. 134, provides that—

"It shall be competent to the referees on private bills to admit the Locus petitioners, being the municipal or other authority having the local standi of municipal management of the metropolis, or of any town, or the inhabitants of authorities, any town or district alleged to be injuriously affected by a bill, to be inhabitants heard against such bill, if they shall think fit."

5

In the case of a petition from the inhabitants of a town, it should be shown that they fairly represent the general

1 As originally passed in 1870 (125 C. J. 221), this standing order consisted only of the above provision, in the form in which it is quoted with the exception of the word "lessee," which was inserted in 1886 (141 C. J. 281), and of the words "or road," which were inserted in 1903; and in numerous cases the claim of petitioners to be heard under the order as it existed up till 1903 had been admitted or refused by the referees. (Cf. R. & S.

310; 1 S. & A. 297. 303; 2 S. & A.
57. 84. 120. 158, &c.)

2 150 C. J. 383.

3 2 S. & A. 237.

In 1902, the conservators of a common, claiming to be heard under this provision, against the construction of tramways along a road adjoining the common, were refused a locus standi, 2 S. & A 124.

5 Cf. 1 S. & A. 264-5.

of towns, &c.

S. O. 134.

[blocks in formation]

1

XXVII.

body of inhabitants; and numerous decisions of the Chapter
referees have established the general grounds upon which
such bodies are entitled to be heard. But the cases arising
under this standing order have varied so much in their
circumstances, that no analysis of them would be adequate
for the practical guidance of parties.2

Under standing order No. 134E, it is competent to the
referees if they think fit-

"To admit the petitioners, being the conservators, constituted under Act of Parliament, or under a scheme or an order of the Board of Agriculture, having the control, regulation, or management of any forest, common, or open space alleged to be injuriously affected by a bill, to be heard against such bill."

And under standing order No. 134в, it is competent to them

"To admit the petitioners, being the council of any administrative county or county borough, or being a joint committee of councils of administrative counties or county boroughs the whole or any part of which is alleged to be injuriously affected by a bill, to be heard against such bill if they think fit.”3

The four following standing orders, on the other handlike the first part of standing order No. 135—are of a mandatory nature, and the referees' discretion under these

12 C. & R. 78; 3 ib. 382. 442; R. & M. 110; R. & S. 72. 222; 1 S. & A. 312.

21 C. & S. 84, et seq. And cf. R. & S. 60; 1 S. & A. 326; 2 ib. 11. 239. 240. 242. 251. In the following cases a locus standi was allowed: R. & S. 227 & 337 (extension of time bills); and R. & S. 34. 237. 327; 1 S. & A. 9. 47. 154. 273. 334; 2 ib. 119, &c. Locus standi disallowed: 1 S. & A. 216. 328. 329; ib. 33. 110. 130. 141. 144. 165. 177. 181. 213. 223. 225. 234-5, &c.; and cf. 2 S. & A. 241; and 136 Parl. Deb. 4 s. 92-106 (petition of J. Taylor against Maidenhead Bridge Bill, 1904). Inhabitants whose right to be heard was objected to on the ground that they were represented by the local authority, have been granted a locus standi (2 C. & R. 47. 52; 1 S. & A. 254). In some cases, however, where

a local authority has also petitioned
against a bill, a locus standi has been
refused to inhabitants if they were
not of a representative character
(R. & S. 72; 2 S. & A. 64), or if
the points they urged were similar
to those urged in the local autho-
rity's petition (2 C. & S. 5). Cf.
however infra as to the case of con-
sumers of gas or water. It has been
held that standing order 134 does
not apply to the case of a parish
council (1 S. & A. 224).

3 Locus standi allowed: R. & S.
202. 237-240; 1 S. & A. 72. 270–1;
2 ib. 9. 252 (extension of time bills),
161.200-1. Locus standi disallowed:
R. & S. 234; 2 S. & A. 154. 197.
209. 234-5; and ib. 46 and 53 (West
Riding Rivers Board claiming to be
heard, under this standing order
against a waterworks bill). Locus
standi limited: 2 S. & A. 130.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »