United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions

Subject_Private Legislation Procedure — Provisional Order — Locus Standi — Railway Company Opposing Electric Tramway Company Order — Electric Tramways Competing with Railway — Supply of Electric Power by Corporation for Use Outside Municipal Area — Objection by Ratepayers. Headnote:

Certain individuals presented this Order with a view to form a private company for making and working by electricity certain suburban tramway lines in Aberdeen. Two lines of tramways were proposed—one for Deeside and one for Donside—both lying in the county of Aberdeen.

The Great North of Scotland Railway Company appeared as objectors. They objected mainly on the ground that the proposed tramway was in competition with the railway; and as ratepayers, on the ground that power was sought under the Order to enable the Corporation of Aberdeen to enter into an agreement for working tramways and supplying electricity outside the municipal area.

The promoters maintained that the objectors were not entitled to a locus standi.

Argued for the promoters—(1) The objectors had no locus standi on the ground that the tramway lines would compete with the railway. There were numerous cases where tramways ran alongside railways, but a tramway was not a railway, and that point underlay the whole question of locus standi. The principle that governed the granting of locus on the ground of competition, was that the person who sought the locus must be carrying on the same or substantially the same business as the promoter of the undertaking to which he objected. The electric tramway was not a railway. The whole undertaking was different. The tramway did not carry goods. It would be a misfortune if the locus of a railway to oppose a tramway scheme of this kind was recognised in Scotland when the referees of the House of Commons refused to recognise it— Dublin Southern Tramways Bill 1893, Rickart & Saunders, 242; Dublin United Tramways Bill 1897, 1 Saunders & Austin, 157; Greenock and Port-Glasgow Tramways Bill 1899, 1 Saunders & Martin, 322. The only exception was Dublin Southern District Railways Bill 1898, 1 Saunders & Austin 242, in which case the railway got a locus, but the railway there was a suburban railway running trains every three minutes, and it might have been held that that was the same sort of service as a tramway. (2) As regards the opposition of the Railway Company as ratepayers, the tramways were to be run outside the city in the county. There was no danger of any loss due to the supply of electricity by the Corporation falling on the objectors as ratepayers. The Corporation would get a good return if they supplied the power. The electricity, too, would all be delivered to the promoters within the boundaries of the city, and carried thence to be used.

Argued for the objectors—(1) There would be here a real competition between the railway and the tramway which it was proposed to run alongside the railway. That was sufficient to give a locus. It would be impossible to conceive a tramway scheme more in competition with a railway than this one, because it was actually laid side by side with the railway. (2) They were interested as the largest ratepayers in the city in objecting to powers being taken to enable the Corporation to enter into agreements for working tramways outside the municipal area. Within the city the Corporation were restricted by their Acts requiring them to fix such rates as would be remunerative and not involve falling back on the assessments. But if the Corporation worked the tramways proposed they would be free from such restrictions. Also as ratepayers they had a locus to object to the Corporation being authorised to deliver large quantities of electricity at their boundary for the purpose of being used outside their boundary. That was traffic and trade to which ratepayers might well object. The cases mentioned by the promoters did not apply, because they were cases of the conversion of existing schemes from horse haulage to electrical or mechanical power.

The Commissioners granted the objectors a locus standi. In the course of the proof the Chairman, dealing with the relevancy of certain questions put by counsel for the objectors, said—“You (the objectors) have asked for a locus standi on the ground that you would be injured by the competition of this tramway, and on these grounds

Page: 873↓

the Commission granted your locus standi. It is not a general locus standi to go into the question whether the scheme is a good one or a feasible one, or suited to the requirements of the neighbourhood, and such points; it is a narrow point whether a railway under those circumstances has a locus standi at all, and we decided on the question of your being injured by the competition of this tramway that you have a locus standi to that extent. If it had not been for the fact that you are likely to be influenced adversely by the competition we should have decided that you had no locus standi, in which case we should have to be content with our knowledge of whether it is a good scheme for the neighbourhood, and for general purposes or not, and therefore we consider that under those circumstances you have not a locus standi as to whether it is a workable scheme or not. Your contention is that it is a scheme which will injuriously affect you, and therefore questions as to whether it is likely to be a good scheme or not ought not to be allowed.”

The Commissioners ultimately held the preamble of the Order proved.