United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions

Subject_Provisional Order — Private Legislation Procedure — Locus standi — Tramways — Interference with Pipes — Electrolytic Action — Tramways Act 1870, secs. 30 to 32 Board of Trade Regulations.

Provisional Order — Private Legislation Procedure — Locus standi — Tramway Scheme Promoted by Burgh — Lessees of Omnibuses in Adjoining Burgh Oppose on Ground of Competition.

Provisional Order — Private Legislation Procedure — Tramway Scheme Promoted by Burgh — Proposal to Make Police Rate Ultimately Liable for Deficits in Working Disallowed. Headnote:

This was a Provisional Order to authorise the Corporation of Leith to acquire the existing tramways within the burgh and to convert them to the electric overhead system.

The Edinburgh and District Water Trustees and the Edinburgh and Leith Corporations Gas Commissioners appeared as objectors. The grounds of their objections were that under the proposed Order they were not adequately protected in the matters of (1) interference with their pipes, and (2) electrolytic action. The proposed Order incorporated the Tramways Act 1870, secs. 30 to 32, in the matter of pipes, and in the matter of electrolytic action the regulations of the Board of Trade formed upon the recommendations of Lord Cross's Committee. The objectors desired to have reserved to themselves the right to carry out the alterations on the position of the gas and water mains (a right conferred by the Tramway Act upon the promoters), and to have fuller protection against electrolytic action in the shape of a provision to the effect that if any damage were thereby done to the plant it should be made good by the person causing it.

The promoters objected to the locus standi of the objectors, arguing that where the provisions of the Tramway Act and the Board of Trade Regulations were incorporated in a proposed Order only an averment of very special circumstances, wanting in this case, would give a locus standi—Airdrie and Coatbridge Company, Saunders & Austin, vol. ii, p. 3. The objectors referred to the Scarborough Tramways Bill, Saunders & Austin, vol. ii, p. 145.

The Commissioners allowed the Edinburgh and District Water Trustees and the Edinburgh and Leith Corporations Gas Commissioners a locus as far as the adjustment of clauses.

The Water of Leith Purification and Sewage Commissioners also appeared as objectors, claiming that a clause should be inserted in the Order giving them the right themselves to carry out any operations near or upon their sewers necessitated by the tramway undertaking. The promoters contended that they had no locus standi, this being a question merely of physical interference and not electrolytic action, and that to grant a locus in a question of physical interference where the promoters of an Order had incorporated the provisions of the Tramways Act of 1870 was unheard of.

The Commissioners refused a locus, holding that the objectors' case was covered by section 31 of the Tramways Act of 1870.

Evidence was subsequently led on behalf of the promoters and the Edinburgh and District Water Trustees and the Edinburgh and Leith Corporations Gas Commissioners, and thereafter the Chairman of the Commission after consultation answered that they were not prepared to put in any new clauses.

The Edinburgh and District Tramways Company (lessees of the Corporation of Edinburgh, who objected to the Order upon various grounds and obtained a locus standi) were also among the objectors. They were, they pointed out, at present compelled by statute to run a line of omnibuses between Newhaven and Leith, and they contended that the proposed extension of the Leith tramway would tap the very district which they served with this line of omnibuses. They did not oppose the passing of the preamble, but argued that they had right to a locus to see that their interests were adequately protected. The omnibuses were run at the present time at a loss, and that loss would be largely increased if they were compelled to run the omnibuses against the tramways. The Tramway Company should either take over the whole traffic of the district, and relieve them of their obligations, or should not interfere with it at all.

The promoters objected to the locus standi of the Tramways Company, on the ground that they had no right to appear, inasmuch as no tramway of theirs was touched or physically interfered with— The Landsdowne Road Tramway Bill, 2 Clifford & Rickard's Reports, p. 177.

The Chairman—I do not see that the lessees (the Edinburgh and District Tiamways Company) have any locus standi because of the omnibus.

Section 73 of the proposed Order provided—“The Corporation shall once in each year, after the first year's working by the Corporation, cause to be laid before them a statement and balance-sheet of the tramway accounts, … and the Corporation shall thereupon fix the tolls, fares, and charges to be levied by them for the use of the tramways … for the said year then ensuing: … Provided further, that if in any year the revenue exceeds such expenditure the Corporation shall deal with the surplus in manner provided by … this

Page: 882↓

Order, … and that should there be a deficiency in any year it shall be provided for in the estimate for the following year by drawing from reserve account, or varying the tolls, fares, and charges, or reducing working expenses, or be carried to a suspense account and reduced gradually over a period of years not exceeding five, and failing these from the police rate.”

The Caledonian Railway Company objected to the words “and failing these from the police rate,” arguing generally that it was exceedingly inexpedient that unsuccessful municipal trading should be carried on at the expense of the rates, and specially that it struck the Caledonian Railway particularly hard, inasmuch as they were large ratepayers in Leith, and were at the same time bound to run certain trains and to keep the fares within certain limits for the benefit of Leith.