페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

authoriti

0

Chaptor orders consists in deciding whether the circumstances of a
XXVII.

petitioner are, or are not, such as to entitle him to the
benefit of their provisions.

By standing order No. 134c:-
“The council of any administrative county alleging in their petition Locus
that such administrative county, or any part thereof, may be injuri- standi of

a county ously affected (A) by the provisions of any bill relating to the water council supply of any town or district, whether situate within or without such against a county, or (B) by the provisions of any bill proposing to authorize the water or a

tramway construction or reconstruction of any tramway along any main road, hill or along any other road to the maintenance and repair of which the s. 0. 134c. county council contributes, within the administrative county, shall be entitled to be heard against such bill.” 1

By standing order No. 1341— “The municipal or other local authority of any town or district Locus alleging in their petition that such town or district may be injuriously standi

against affected by the provisions of any bill relating to the lighting or water lighting supply thereof, or the raising of capital for any such purpose, shall be and water entitled to be heard against such bill." ?

bills (a) of

local In many cases, consumers of gas and water have been admitted to oppose gas and water bills affecting their area 134A); of supply. But where the petitioners were only affected in a

“consumers common with other ratepayers, they have not been allowed of gas and a locus standi. And a locus standi has also been refused to residents in a new district which it was proposed to supply with gas, on the ground that they are not compelled to use the gas to be supplied nor restrained from manufacturing their own.5

i Locus standi allowed: 2 S. & A. 169; 2 S. & A. 106. 112. Locus 47 (against waterworks bill); ib. 63 standi disallowed: 1 S. & A. 289. (against tramways bill). Locus 304-6. 328; 2 ib. 154. 243; and 46 standi disallowed : 2 S. & A. 46 & & 53 (petition of West Riding Rivers 53 (West Riding Rivers Board peti. Board). This standing order has tioning against waterworks bill). been held not to include the case of Locus standi limited: 1 S. & A. 85- a parish council, 1 S. & A. 224-6. 90; 2 ib. 164-5. This standing order Cf. also for interpretations of this has been held to include the case of standing order, R. & S. 125–7; 2 a borough, which, under sect. 31 of S. & A. 106. the Local Government Act, 1888, is 31 C. & R. 16. 51. 135. 141. 143. for the purposes of that Act an ad. 213; 2 ib. 9. 10; 3 ib. 40. 118; R. ministrative county in itself, 2 S. & & M. 12 (water), 137. 191 (gas); R. A. 96. Cf. also, for interpretations & S. 53; 1 S. & A. 254. of this standing order, 1 S. & A. 41 C. & R. 144. 68-70; 2 ib. 79-80.

si C. & R. 267 ; 2 ib. 78. ? Locus standi allowed : R. & S. .

water.

Locus

standi of shareholders.

BILLS IN COMMONS.
A ground of objection that has frequently been taken to Chapter

XXVII
the locus standi of petitioners is that they are shareholders -
or members of some corporate body by whom the bill is
promoted, and that, being legally bound by the acts of the
majority, they are precluded from being heard as individual
petitioners. With very few exceptions, indeed, it has
been the rule, in the Commons, not to allow shareholders
to be heard in opposition, unless they had any interest
different from that of the general body of shareholders.
And in 1853, the house declared by a standing order (now
No. 130) that,

S. 0. 130.

“Where a bill is promoted by an incorporated company, shareholders of such company shall not be entitled to be heard before the committee against such bill, unless their interests, as affected thereby, shall be distinct from the general interests of such company."

The decisions of the referees have consequently been founded, in cases of this kind, upon the nature of the petitioners' interest, and the manner in which it is affected by the provisions of the bill.

i This objection was argued at great length in the case of the Bir. mingham and Oxford Junction Railway Bill, in 1847, when the committee decided that sharehold. ers in the company were not en. titled to be heard. Again, in the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Bill, in 1848, it was deter. mined “that the general rule, that in the case of a joint-stock company the decision of the majority is bind. ing on the minority, ought to be observed, and that the minority of the shareholders in this case had no locus standi before the committee.”

2 Manchester Cemetery Bill, 1848, Minutes of Committee, p. 136; South Yorkshire Railway and River Dunn Bill, 1852, Suppl. to Votes, 1852, p. 298; North British Rail. way Bill, 1853, Suppl. to Votes, 1853, p. 716, &c.

3 Suppl. to Votes, 1840, pp. 41. 43. 75. 182.

* Supp). to Votes, 1847. ii. pp.

1110. 1254; 1848, pp. 309.398; 1850, pp. 72. 75; 1851, pp. 111. 115. 300. 371; 1852, p. 298; 1853, p. 1013. In 1856 the holders of “creditors' stock” were refused & hearing against the Eastern Union Railway Bill, Suppl. to Votes, 1856, i. p. 55. 53 C. & R. 77.

In 1867 the referees decided that the Great Eastern Railway Company were not entitled to be heard against the Tendring Hundred Railway Bill, on the ground that they were holders of shares in a portion of the company's capital, and that they failed to establish an interest distinct from that of the general body of the shareholders. (1 C. & S. App. 8; R. & M. 181). In 1890 a holder of Lloyd's bonds was heard against a railway bill by which his security was affected (R. & S. 28; and cf. ib. 264). Cf. also 1 C. & S. App. 103; 1 C. & R. 43. 51. 89. 102; 2 ib. 101. 169. 273; 3 ib. 91 ; R. & M. 3. 155. 162. 225.

[blocks in formation]

The proprietor of preference shares has a special interest, Locus

Eth standi of which is often distinct from or opposed to that of the

bude preference general body of shareholders, and his locus standi has share

holders. regularly been allowed, unless it has appeared that his special interest is not such as to entitle him to be heard.2

And the locus standi of petitioners who have dissented at a “Wharncliffe” meeting (cf. supra, p. 723 and infra. p. 842–4. 848) is secured by the following standing order, No. 131, which was passed in 1876—

“In case any proprietor, shareholder, or member of or in any com- Locus.

stumdi of pany, society, association, or co-partnership, shall, by himself or any oro. person authorized to act for him in that behalf, have dissented at any prietors, meeting called in pursuance of standing orders 62 to 66, or at any meet- share

holders, ing called in pursuance of any similar standing order of the House of &c., disLords, such proprietor, shareholder, or member shall be permitted to senting at be heard by the committee on the bill on a petition presented to the

cliffe ” house, such petition having been duly deposited in the Private Bill meeting. Office." 3

0. 131.

For many years prior to its adoption by the Commons, a similar rule prevailed in the Lords; and shareholders who had dissented from the bill at the meeting called in pursuance of the Wharncliffe order were expressly permitted to be heard, and were even heard without such dissent. Closely akin to the case of shareholders is the case of Locus

standi of petitioners who—in the capacity in which they petition- ratepayers

and other may be held to be represented by a local authority or other persons re. body. Ratepayers, for example, have not been allowed to presented.

i South Eastern (Power to discontinue interest, &c.) Bill, 1850, Suppl. to Votes, 1850, pp. 165. 195; South Devon Railway Bill, 1850, ib. p. 33; Shropshire Union, &c., Bill, 1850, ib. pp. 72, 73; York, New. castle, and Berwick, &c., Bill, 1850, ib. p. 102; 1 C. & R. 167 ; 2 ib. 169; 3 ib. 77. In 1872 a limited locus standi was granted to preference shareholders against the capital clauses of a bill and against so much of the preamble as related

thereto, 1 C. & S. App. 163; 2 ib. 257-8.

? Suppl, to Votes, 1855, p. 259.

3 3C. & R. 446 ; R. & M. 52. 199; R. & S. 26; 1 S. & A. 340. It has been held that shareholders who dissented at a Wharnclifie meeting were not entitled to be heard when the meeting, though held, had been unnecessary under the standing orders (Committee on Redditch Railway, &c., Bill, 1862; and R. & M. 259).

be heard, as such, against a bill promoted by a corpora- Chapter

XXVII. tion, or other local authority, of which they are electors. And in 1872 a locus standi against the Metropolitan Street Improvements Bill was similarly refused to various vestries and public bodies, on the ground that their interests, although various, were represented by the superior body (the Metropolitan Board of Works) by whom the bill was promoted. In the case of a bill promoted by a general body of trustees, permission to be heard in opposition has been refused to individual trustees,4 and to individuals forming part of a body represented by the trustees ;5 and it has been held that a single member of a harbour commission could not be heard, as a commissioner, against a bill that had been approved by the general body. On the other hand, owners who petition against a bill promoted by a corporation? or local authority,' and imposing upon their property a new liability to rates,' have been granted a locus standi, having special interests which are not considered to be represented by the promoting body.10 In

11 C. & R. 211; 3 ib. 376. 377; R. & M. 74; R. & S. 287; 1 S. & A. 316; 2 ib. 126. 243-5.

22 C. & S. 97. 265; 1 C. & R. 196; 2 ib. 9; 1 S. & A. 129; 2 S. & A. 41.

32 C. & S. 265. In 1857 the Vestry of St. George's, Hanover Square, and in 1865 the Vestry of Bermondsey, on the same ground, had not been allowed to be heard, respectively, against the Finsbury Park Bill, 1857, and the Whitechapel, &c., Improvement Bill, 1865, which were promoted by the Metropolitan Board of Works. Smethurst App. 187; and cf. also 1 C. & S. App. 155.

• Committee on Queensferry Passage Bill, 1848.

• Committee on Mersey Docks and Harbour (New Works) Bill, 1858.

6 R. & M. 288–9. In 1901, individual freemen of the Watermen and Lightermen's Company, petition. ing against the Thames Piers and

River Service Bill, were refused a
locus standi, although the governing
body of the company-by whom, it
was contended, they were repre-
sented-had not petitioned, 2 S. &
A. 82.

72 C. & S. 121 ; 1 C. & R. 211. 229; 2 ib. 149. 233; R. & M. 76-8; R. & S. 349; 2 S. & A. 175.

81 C. & R. 196, and cf. R. & S. 276-278; 1 S. & A. 39. 139; 2 ib. 72.

The locus standi thus given to an owner has also been given to the leaseholder (for & substantial term of years) of property rendered liable to increased taxation, R. & S. 349353.

10 In the case of the Ilkley Local Board Bill of 1871, however, the referees determined that certain petitioners, being owners of property and ratepayers, could not be heard against the bill, being represented by the board by whom the bill was promoted, 2 C. & S. 97. Cf. also 3 C. & R. 376-8; and R. & M. 74; R. & S. 276 ; 2 S. & A. 53.

XXVI

Chapter the case of a bill opposed by a rural sanitary authority,

not only owners but ratepayers within the district have
been heard in opposition, as well as the authority itself,
their interests being considered sufficiently distinct to
entitle them to a separate hearing. And in 1904 a locus
standi was granted to two railway companies who claimed
to be heard as ratepayers against the Wolverhampton
Corporation on the grounds that, being affected differently
from other ratepayers, they desired to ask for differential
rating, and that by the Borough Funds Act, 1893, they were
debarred from voting in the election of the corporation.?

In 1897 the rating authorities of two parishes were
granted a locus standi, limited to the question of rating,
against a railway bill, in addition to the superior authority
of the larger district of which these parishes formed a
part. And in the case of an amalgamation bill, the
South London Gas Bill of 1872, it was decided that
vestries, district boards, and individual consumers were
entitled to be heard in addition to the Metropolitan Board
of Works against the bill."
A petitioner who has not opposed a bill in the other Locus.

standi house is not precluded from being heard upon his petition against in the House of Commons : 6 but the locus standi of peti- brought tioners has been disallowed, where they have consented, ff in the other house, to protective clauses.? So, if the parties agree to abide by the decision of the committee in one house, they will not be heard in the other: but it is otherwise, if they have not so agreed ; 8 and by standing

rom the > Lords.

12 C. & R. 47; R. & M. 77. But cf. 2 S. & A. 228-9.

? 2 S. & A. 254. 31 S. & A. 222. Cf. also 2 S. & A. 11. 12.

* Cf. supra, p. 772 (amalgamation bills). 32 C. & S. 220. o Smethurst, App. 162.

Smethurst, App. 95; 2 C. & R. 27; R. & S. 39; 2 S. & A. 85. Peti. tioners, having tendered a clause in the House of Lords, which was

rejected by the committee, and then
accepted two other clauses, with
alterations suggested by them, were
held not to be precluded from a
hearing before the committee of the
Commons, as the clauses they had
accepted were of minor importance,
and had only been acquiesced in
conditionally upon the acceptance
of their own clause, which had been
rejected (1 C. & R. 275).

& Whitehaven, Cleator, &c., Rail-
way Bill, 1875; 1 C. & R. 200.

« 이전계속 »