XXVII. circumstances, after the time limited.1 Such notices may Chapter Manner of On the day appointed for hearing any case before the hearing cases, locus standi court of referees, it has to be proved that the notices of objections have been duly served. If no one appears in support of the petition, the locus standi of the petitioners is disallowed. If the petitioners appear their petition against the preamble or clauses of the bill, the statement of objections to their right to be heard, and the bill itself, being before the court-the counsel for the petitioners supports their claim; and the counsel for the promoters is heard in reply,-the speeches being thus limited to one on each side. For the purposes of argument on questions. of locus standi, the allegations of a petition are ordinarily admitted: but where the rights of petitioners to be heard depends upon special facts which are disputed, they may be called upon to give primâ facie evidence in support of their case.8 Petitioners' indicated Some petitioners pray to be heard against the preamble opposition and clauses of the bill; some against certain clauses only; and others pray for the insertion of protective clauses, or by their petitions. for compensation for damage which will arise under the bill. Locus standi limited. The locus standi of a petitioner is always limited to the 1 Permission granted, Rickards & Michael, Locus Standi Reports, 174; not granted, Rickards and Saunders, L. S. Reports, 11. 159. 2 Smethurst on Locus Standi, 8, App. 91. 3 Smethurst, 11, 12, App. 93; 1 Clifford & Stephens, L. S. Reports, App. 41; 3 Clifford & Rickards, 155. 316. 319; 1 Saunders & Austin, L. S. Reports, 294. After the In some cases the referees "unlimited" locus standi Petitioners have called evidence in In giving its decision in such Chapter against a bill, have left the relevancy of some of a XXVII. petitioner's allegations for the determination of the committee.1 the court locus standi cases. Upon the commencement of their jurisdiction in 1865, Practice of the referees took as the basis of their practice the prin- regarding ciples and precedents contained in the decisions, regarding the locus standi of petitioners, that had previously been given by individual committees; and they reduced to a system, as far as possible, the rules affecting the rights of petitioners to be heard. In the course of time this system has been modified, not only by the interpretations and decisions of the court itself, but by the additions and alterations that have been made in the standing orders relating to locus standi. Generally speaking, it may be said that petitioners whose property or interests are proved to be directly and specially affected by a bill have a locus standi before the committee. But so many exceptional circumstances naturally arise in each instance that, in the following pages, nothing beyond a very brief review can be given of the more important cases determined by the court. For more detailed information, the reader must consult the invaluable series of "Locus Standi Reports," to which frequent references are here given.2 owners' It has been laid down, as an established practice, that Landthe owners of land proposed to be compulsorily taken-focus and also the lessees and occupiers, on whom, as on owners, standi. the notices required by the standing orders of both houses are to be served-should always be heard against both the 11 Clifford & Rickards, 47; 2 ib. 130. And cf. Rickards and Saunders, L. S. Reports, 117-120. 330; 2 Saunders and Austin, 182. 2 For reports of cases of locus standi decided by the Court of Referees in 1865 (the first year of its jurisdiction), and in 1866, cf. Smethurst's Treatise on Locus Standi (2nd edit., 1867), and for cases from 18671872, cf. Clifford & Stephens (C. & S.), Practice of the Court of Referees with Reports of Cases, in 2 vols. (vol. i. 1867-69: vol. ii. 1870-72): 3 XXVII. preamble and the clauses of a bill. The same unlimited Chapter ("landowner's ") locus standi has also been granted to the owner of minerals, and to the lord of a manor, claiming to be heard against bills affecting their property or rights: to magistrates and councillors having an interest in the lands or a right to gravel on the foreshore, within their burgh or barony; and to other petitioners who have been held to "have an interest" in land proposed to be taken.5 A railway company whose property is proposed to be taken has been allowed the same rights of locus standi as a S. O. 132. private landowner, and standing order No. 132 provides that, in the case of every railway bill which— 6 "Contains provisions for taking or using any part of the lands, railway, stations or accommodation of another company, or for running engines or carriages upon or across the same, or for granting other facilities, such company shall be entitled to be heard upon their petition against such provisions or against the Preamble and Clauses of such Bill."8 Even in the case of an omnibus bill, or a bill in which the promoters seek powers for a number of various objects or different undertakings, the general locus standi allowed to a petitioner as a landowner has enabled him, however little of It has been ruled that a peti- 2 1 C. & R. 221; 3 ib. 46. 1 S. & A. 15. The owner of the been granted a locus standi as a 51 C. & R. 158; R. & S. 328-330; 6 London & North Western Railway Bill, 1868, 1 C. & S. App. 62. 63 (the post case), 3 C. & R. 481. 7 The words italicised were not contained in the original standing order, but were inserted in 1871. 126 C. J. 421 ; and cf. 2 C. & S. 256. 82 C. & S. 256; 1 C. & R. 7. 19. 206; 3 ib. 136. 201. 301. 367; R. & M. 89. 98. 139 (Cathcart, &c., Railway Bill), 311; R. & S. 117. In the following cases a "limited locus standi was allowed: 3 C. & R. 142. 177. 326. 341; R. & M. 252; R. & S. 14. 152. XXVII. 1 Chapter his land were taken, to be heard against the whole bill; and in cases where the promoters have desired more particularly to exclude him from being heard on any save certain provisions of a bill, the referees have refused so to limit his locus standi.2 But in 1891, and again in 1903, when granting the usual "landowner's locus standi," against the whole of a railway (various powers) bill, to a petitioner whose land was taken under a part only of the bill, the court expressly declared that, in doing so, they did not intend to influence the committee, who would deal with the petitioner's interests as affected by the bill, in judging what might or might not be considered as material. And in 1902, the locus standi of a petitioning landowner, a railway company, against an improvement (omnibus) bill promoted by an urban district council, was limited to those parts of the bill under which the company's land was taken or their interests affected.4 standi of abandon In the case of a bill for the abandonment of a railway Locus not completed within the time for which compulsory landowner powers had been granted, the owner of land upon the against line has not been allowed a locus standi5 except in some ment, excases where it has been shown that he has sustained time, and special damage. Lessees of minerals beneath a line revival of proposed to be abandoned have been refused a locus bills. standi.7 6 It has been held that a landowner has a general locus standi against an omnibus railway bill, however limited his interest, London & North Western Railway Bill, 1868, 1 C. & S. App. 62. 63 (known as the "post" case); and 2 C. & S. 37; R. & S. 117, &c. (petitions of railway companies as landowners); 1 C. & R. 221; 2 ib. 130; R. & S. 67; 2 S. & A. 182-3, &c. (petitions of other landowners); and cf. Select Committee on Private Bill Business, 1863, pp. 105. 113 (Evidence). landowner whose land was to be taken has been held to have a general locus standi against a general improvement bill, 1 C. & S. 19 App. A 49; 1 C. & R. 158; 2 C. & R. 69- 2 2 C. & R. 130; 2 S. & A. 15. 123. 3 R. & S. 117 (railway company petitioning against an omnibus railway bill); 2 S. & A. 182 (London County Council, as landowner, against Metropolitan District Railway (Various Powers) Bill); and cf. 1 C. & R. 47-48; R. & S. 330 Cardiff, &c., Bill). 42 S. & A. 104. 1 C. & S. 27; 2 C. & R. 40; 3 ib. 78. 399. 403. 1 C. & S. 28; 2 C. & R. 231; R. & M. 139. 1 C. & S. 28-29. tension of powers, XXVII. In the case of a bill for an extension of time,1 the owners Chapter of land authorized by a former Act to be taken, and already contracted for with the company, have been refused a hearing, on the ground that they were merely creditors. But a landowner with whom a company had contracted to restore land not required for the railway, within a certain time, has been allowed a hearing against a clause extending the time for completing the line, so as to enable him to seek the insertion of a special saving clause for his contract; and landowners who had special agreements with a company, or who had received no notice to treat for the purchase of their land under compulsory powers, have obtained their locus standi against extension of time. where a company applied for an extension of time for purchasing land and completing works, and it was shown that nothing had been done for the execution of the line, and that the company were under financial embarrassments, landowners on the line have been allowed a hearing.5 And In the case of a bill providing, not for an extension of time, but for a revival of the expired powers of a company, a locus standi has been allowed to another railway company or a landowner as if the bill were the original bill; but it has been refused in a similar case when, the money for the purchase of his property under the original Act having been paid into court, the petitioner's legal interest 1 As to the locus standi of municipal authorities against extension of time (and other) bills, cf. S. O. 134. 134A. and 134B, infra, pp. 7757, and R. & S. 124-6. 227, &c. 2 Smethurst, App. 110; 1 C. & S. 31 App. 37; 3 C. & R. 315; R. & M. 133; R. & S. 330. Cf. as an exceptional case, R. & S. 224. 31 C. & S. App. 29. 32. 2 C. & R. 100; R. & M. 67. 113; 1 S. & A. 1. Cf., however, R. & M. 59. 187; R. & S. 330-333. The referees have held that the owner of certain premises, who, having received notice, had engaged other premises and had applied to the Court of Queen's Bench for a mandamus to compel the company 1 C. & S. 28. 34; R. & M. 89; 6 R. & M. 89. 7 1 C. & S. 36, App. 35; 1 S. & A. 261. |
