BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions >> II. Clyde Lighthouses Order [1912] UKHL 1053 (29 March 1912) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1912/49SLR1053.html Cite as: [1912] UKHL 1053, 49 ScotLR 1053 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 1053↓
(Before the
Subject_Provisional Order — Locus Standi — River Improvement — Power to Deepen, and Regulate Traffic on, Lower Reach of a River — Locus Granted to River Authority having Control of Upper Reach, and to Authority already Vested with Power to Regulate Traffic on the River.
This Order was promoted by the Clyde Lighthouses Trustees, who are a statutory body entrusted with the conservancy of the lower reaches of the Clyde.
The principal purpose of the Order was to provide for the improvement of the channel of the river Clyde below Newark Castle. The Order also proposed certain amendments on the Acts relating to the Clyde lighthouses, and empowered the Trustees to make bye-laws for the regulation of traffic on the river, with regard to (1) the speed of vessels, (2) lighting and removal of wreckage, (3) launching of vessels from adjacent shipyards, and (4) anchorage of vessels.
The Order was opposed by the Clyde Navigation Trustees and by the Clyde Pilot Board. The former demanded a protective clause which would enable them to have a voice as to the extent and manner of carrying out the proposed improvement of the channel, and both bodies objected to the power to make bye-laws, on the ground that the Pilot Board were already vested by statute with like powers, and that it was inexpedient that two bodies should have concurrent right to make regulations as to the same matters within the same area.
Counsel for the promoters objected to the locus standi of both the objectors.
Argued for the objectors—The bulk of the traffic on the river was being carried either to or from the reaches under the control of the Clyde Navigation Trustees, to which their channel formed the only access. They therefore had a clear interest in the maintenance of the whole channel and in the traffic regulations which might be made with regard to it. The Pilot Board had a right to a locus on the ground that the power to make bye-laws with regard to the area in question was already vested in themselves.
The Commissioners granted the locus craved.
After hearing evidence the Commissioners held the preamble proved, subject to the adjustment of a clause for the protection of the Clyde Pilot Board in relation to the making of bye-laws by the promoters.
Counsel for the Promoters— Cooper, K.C.— Macmillan. Agents— Anderson & Pattison, Solicitors, Glasgow.
Counsel for the Clyde Navigation Trustees ( Objecting)— Constable, K.C.— Russell. Agents— Wright, Johnston, & Mackenzie, Solicitors, Glasgow.
Counsel for the Corporation of Glasgow—The Solicitor-General ( Anderson, K.C.)— Russell. Agent— J. Lindsay, Town Clerk.
Counsel for Trustees of the Port and Harbour of Greenock— Macmillan. Agents— Neill, Clark, & Murray, Solicitors, Greenock— Beveridge, Greig, & Company, Solicitors, Westminster.
