Daft (16
16234/62/49)
FEDERATION OF MALAYA
CONFIDENTIAL
No. 166
Copy
COLONIAL OFFICE,
2
The Church House,
Great Smith Street,
S. W. 1.
3 May, 1949.
67
A
Sir,
I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your dos patch No. 193 of the 23rd of November, 1948, regarding "denial" claims and to inform you that the question has now been further considered in conjunction with other Departments concerned. I observe from paragraph 18 of the Roport of the Select Committee on the Memorandum of Proposals on war damage compensation (Legislative Council paper No. 10 of 1949) that the Committee considers that the abovo claims should rank pari possu with other claims under any wor damage compensation scheme, without prejudice to any right a claimant may have to pursue his claim against the local authorities in the Courts. It was of course the original intention that such claims should be dealt with as part of the problem of war damage sinco in paragraph 2(c) of the Commissioner's turms of roforunce one of the categories of claims to be assessed was in respect of "damage to land, buildings and goods, caused by monsuros token under proper authority for the purpose of denying or diminishing the use of land, buildings or goods to the on any",
2.
J
Novertheless claimants who fuil to obtain satisfection through normal channels (as to which see below) may decide to pursue their claims against the local authorities (so far as they can) in the Courts and one such case is referred to in my savingrem No. 203 of 15th February, 1949. As to the legal position of "denial" claims, I am advised that in all probability no claim will lie at law apart from any claim under the local Defence Regulations. Whether or not any given claim can be considered as coming within the terms of the Defence Regulstions will depend upon the nature of the claims, the exact terms of the Rogulations, and whether the claimant is able to produce satisfactory ovi donce in support of his claim. In the cvent of any disputo on the point, tho metter would presume bly be referred to the Board provided for in the Defence (Compensation) Regulations. Whilst therefore
I en advised that the legal position is gen orally es sct out in paragraph 2 of the Attorney-General's summory on page 4 of Appendix 'C' onclosed in your despatch, the question whether a claimant can in fact prove his cla im dopends upon the actual nature of the claim, the evidence ho can produco in support thereof, and whother tho circumstances which gave rise to the claim are such that they can be considered es coming within the actual terms of the Defonco Regulations.
The above paragraphs deal with this question mainly HIGH COMMISSIONER
SIR HENRY GURNEY, K.C.M.G.,
/from
etc.,
etc.,
etc.