« 이전계속 »
the right of owners of surface waters to be heard as land- Chapter
XXVII. owners has long been established.
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. 8 S. O. 134D. 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 amalgama
- ground upon which petitioners have been admitted to
oppose amalgamation bills is that the amalgamation itself
Numerous questions have arisen in regard to the locus
R. 240-247; 3 ib. 58. 97. 404; R. & . Chasemore v. Richards, 7 H. L. S. 240. 334; 1 S. & A. 90. 173; and Cas. 349; and 2 C. & S. 199; 3 C. & 2 ib. 113. 139. R. 239; R. & M. 95; and 1 S. & A. : Vide Report of joint committee 134.
of Lords and Commons, of 1872, on 3 3 C. & R. 179. 385. 477; 1 S. & Railway Amalgamation. A. 252.
& Smethurst, App. 163; 1 O. & S. *2 S. & A. 79. 80. 88. 177 (locus App. 100; 2 C. & R.172. 243; 3 ib. standi allowed); 2 s. & A. 162 143. 145. 306; R. & M. 177; R. & S. (limited locus standi allowed); 2 S. 334; 1 S. & A. 31. & A. 205. 207. 227 (locus standi dis. Smethurst, App. 136. 138; 1 C. allowed).
& S. App. 101; 2 C. & R. 36-103. 31 C. & R. 240; 2 S. & A. 116. 299; 3 ib. 57. 58. 88. 107. 404; R. & 61 C. & R. 77. Cf. also, i C. & M. 255; 1 S. & A. 173.
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. It was formerly held, as a parliamentary rule, that com- Locus
standi petition did not confer a locus standi : but in course of time on the this rule was considerably relaxed, and numerous excep-room
LP Competions were, in practice, admitted; and under a standing tition.
PS. 0, 129. 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 8 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
11 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); 30. & R. 38 (tramways); 1 C. & R. 59; 2 C. & R. 307 (water).
? Locus standi allowed : To rail. way companies, dock owners, &c., against railway, dock, &c., bills (3 C. & R. 371; R. & M. 87; 2 S. & A. 52. 224). To steam tramway com. panies, &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 om. nibus 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; 1S. & 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
proposed to improve an existing competition, a locus standi
In the case of a bill authorizing a railway company to
The locus standi of a railway company over whose line another company proposes to take running powers is secured by standing order No. 132, already alluded to.9 But a railway company enjoying running powers over 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 amalgamation or for competition, such locus standi has been granted 12 or refused 18 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 standing order No. 135. The first portion of this order provides that,
bill in committee (1 C. & R. 234.
12 C. & R. 133. 279; 3 ib. 225.
? Cf. supra, p. 767, note 3.
3 Cf. standing order No. 156
R. & M. 270.
7 R. & M. 241-2. 251. 270; and cf. R. & S. 346; 2 S. & A. 25. 216221, 223.
8 R. & M. 241. 270 ; R. & S. 111; 2 S. & A. 109. 115. 174,
9 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 O. & R. 78. 96; R. & M. 62.
12 1 O. & S. App. 102; 1 C. & R. 173; 2 ib. 243.
13 2 , & R. 103. 245; 3 ib. 57. 88. 89. 267.
“The owner, lessee, or occupier of any house, shop, or warehouse in 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, o 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
of towns, heard against such bill, if they shall think fit."
8. 0. 134. 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 in serted 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. 32 S. & A. 237.
4 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.
body of inhabitants;1 and numerous decisions of the Chapter
XXVII. 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.?
Under standing order No. 1349, it is competent to the
referees-if they think fitLocus “To admit the petitioners, being the conservators, constituted standi of under Act of Parliament, or under a scheme or an order of the tors of
Board of Agriculture, having the control, regulation, or management forests, of any forest, common, or open space alleged to be injuriously affected commons, by a bill, to be heard against such bill.” S. O.134E. And under standing order No. 134B, it is competent to
themLocus “To admit the petitioners, being the council of any administrative standi of county or county borough, or being a joint committee of councils of
administrative counties or county boroughs the whole or any part councils. S. 0. 134B. OT wo 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. a local authority has also petitioned & M. 110; R. & S. 72. 222; 1 S. & against a bill, a locus standi has been A. 312.
refused to inhabitants if they were ?1 C. & S. 84, et seq. And cf. R. not of a representative character & S. 60; 1 S. & A. 326 ; 2 ib. 11. (R. & S. 72; 2 S. & A. 64), or if 239. 240, 242. 251. In the follow the points they urged were similar ing cases a locus standi was allowed : to those urged in the local authoR. & S. 227 & 337 (extension of time rity's petition (2 C. & S. 5). Cf. bills); and R. & S. 34. 237. 327; 1 however infra as to the case of conS. & A. 9. 47. 154. 273. 334; 2 ib. sumers of gas or water. It has been 119, &c. Locus standi disallowed: held that standing order 134 does 1 S. & A. 216. 328. 329; ib. 33. 110. not apply to the case of a parish 130. 141. 144. 165. 177. 181. 213. 223. council (1 S. & A. 224). 225. 234-5, &c.; and cf. 2 S. & 3 Locus standi allowed : R. & S. A. 241; and 136 Parl. Deb. 4 s. 202. 237-240; 1 S. & A. 72. 270-1; 92–106 (petition of J. Taylor against 2 ib. 9. 252 (extension of time bills), Maidenhead Bridge Bill, 1904). In- 161.200-1. Locus standi disallowed: habitants whose right to be heard R. & S. 234; 2 S. & A. 154. 197. was objected to on the ground that 209. 234-5; and ib. 46 and 53 (West they were represented by the local Riding Rivers Board claiming to be authority, have been granted a locus heard, under this standing order standi (2 C. & R. 47. 52; 1 S. & A. against a waterworks bill). Locus 254). In some cases, however, where standi limited : 2 S. & A. 130.