ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

Chapter 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 :

standi of

a county

"The council of any administrative county alleging in their petition Locus that such administrative county, or any part thereof, may be injuriously 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, bill. or along any other road to the maintenance and repair of which the S. O. 134c. county council contributes, within the administrative county, shall be entitled to be heard against such bill."1

By standing order No. 134A

standi against lighting

"The municipal or other local authority of any town or district Locus alleging in their petition that such town or district may be injuriously affected by the provisions of any bill relating to the lighting or water supply thereof, or the raising of capital for any such purpose, shall be and water entitled to be heard against such bill." 2

3

bills (a) of local authorities; (S. O.

consumers

water.

In many cases, consumers of gas and water have been admitted to oppose gas and water bills affecting their area 134^); and (b) of of supply. But where the petitioners were only affected in common with other ratepayers, they have not been allowed of gas and a locus standi.4 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

1 Locus standi allowed: 2 S. & A. 47 (against waterworks bill); ib. 63 (against tramways bill). Locus standi disallowed: 2 S. & A. 46 & 53 (West Riding Rivers Board petitioning against waterworks bill). Locus standi limited: 1 S. & A. 8590; 2 ib. 164--5. This standing order has been held to include the case of a borough, which, under sect. 31 of the Local Government Act, 1888, is for the purposes of that Act an administrative county in itself, 2 S. & A. 96. Cf. also, for interpretations of this standing order, 1 S. & A. 68-70; 2 ib. 79-80.

2 Locus standi allowed: R. & S.

169; 2 S. & A. 106. 112. Locus
standi disallowed: 1 S. & A. 289.
304-6. 328; 2 ib. 154. 243; and 46
& 53 (petition of West Riding Rivers
Board). This standing order has
been held not to include the case of
a parish council, 1 S. & A. 224-6.
Cf. also for interpretations of this
standing order, R. & S. 125–7; 2
S. & A. 106.

31 C. & R. 16. 51. 135. 141. 143.
213; 2 ib. 9. 10; 3 ib. 40. 118; R.
& M. 12 (water), 137. 191 (gas); R.
& S. 53; 1 S. & A. 254.
41 C. & R. 144.

$ 1 C. & R. 267; 2 ib. 78.

Locus standi of shareholders.

S. O. 130.

XXVIL

A ground of objection that has frequently been taken to Chapter 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.1 And in 1853, the house declared by a standing order (now No. 130) that

3

"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."

[ocr errors]

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."

This objection was argued at great length in the case of the Birmingham and Oxford Junction Railway Bill, in 1847, when the committee decided that shareholders in the company were not entitled to be heard. Again, in the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Bill, in 1848, it was determined "that the general rule, that in the case of a joint-stock company the decision of the majority is binding 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 Railway Bill, 1853, Suppl. to Votes, 1853, p. 716, &c.

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

4 Suppl. 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 a hearing
against the Eastern Union Railway
Bill, Suppl. to Votes, 1856, i. p. 55.
3 C. & R. 77.

In 1867 the referees decided
that the Great Eastern Railway
Company were not entitled to be
heard against the Tendring Hun-
dred 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.

Chapter
XXVII.

standi of

The proprietor of preference shares has a special interest, Locus which is often distinct from or opposed to that of the preference general body of shareholders, and his locus standi has shareregularly been allowed,1 unless it has appeared that his special interest is not such as to entitle him to he 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

holders.

Locus

stumdi of

holders,

"In case any proprietor, shareholder, or member of or in any company, society, association, or co-partnership, shall, by himself or any properson 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-shareing 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 "Wharnhouse, such petition having been duly deposited in the Private Bill meeting. Office." 3

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.

cliffe "

S 0.131.

standi of

Closely akin to the case of shareholders is the case of Locus petitioners who-in the capacity in which they petition ratepayers may be held to be represented by a local authority or other body. Ratepayers, for example, have not been allowed to presented.

1 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, Newcastle, 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.

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

33 C. & R. 446; R. & M. 52. 199; R. & S. 26; 1 S. & A. 340. It has been held that shareholders who dissented at a Wharncliffe 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).

and other

persons re

4

XXVII.

be heard, as such, against a bill promoted by a corpora- Chapter tion,1 or other local authority,2 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, and to individuals forming part of a body represented by the trustees; 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.

R. & M. 288-9. In 1901, individual freemen of the Watermen and Lightermen's Company, petitioning 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. 9 The locus standi thus given to an owner has also been given to the leaseholder (for a 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.

XXVII.

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.2

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.3 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.5

standi

bills

from the

A petitioner who has not opposed a bill in the other Locus 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, Tords 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; and by standing

1 2 C. & R. 47; R. & M. 77. But cf. 2 S. & A. 228-9.

2 2 S. & A. 254.

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

* Cf. supra, p. 772 (amalgamation bills).

5 2 C. & S. 220.

Smethurst, App. 162.

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

8

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.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »