CO129-542-3 Foreshore and Sea-bed Works Bill- correspondence 9-1-1933 - 16-8-1933 — Page 97

-

2

97

nature of his claim from a legal point of view. If there is a reference to a judge the claimant would naturally desire to take all practicable measures to substantiate, and also to go more fully into the legal aspects of, his claim but apparently he would be unable to do this under the present Bill.

The Bill is expressly drafted with a view to throwing the onus on the claimant of showing any right to compensation assuming that the Ordinance had never been passed, and it is therefore of the utmost importance that he should be able to present his case on the reference in as full a manner as possible: this, however, might be unnecessary and a needless expense in putting forward original claim. The Legal Sub-Committee is therefore of opinion that provision should be made for a claimant to put forth his case on the reference in such a manner as he may choose.

As pointed out above, the claimant must prove his legal right apart from the Ordinance, and this will raise most important legal questions regarding the rights of riparian owners. In the opinion of the Legal Sub-Committee, it is desirable that on a point of this importance to all the riparian owners in the Colony there should be an ordinary right to appeal to the Full Court and the Privy Council. The judge, in the first case he has, which may be a very small one and not properly put forward, will have to decide these legal questions and such decision would necessari- ly bind every subsequent claimant, however much he may be affected.

Provision should also be made for extending the time for a claim or reference, say by agreement, as negotiations may extend over two months, notwithstanding which the claimant must ask for his reference within one further month.

Section 6 of the present Bill is based on Section & of Ordinance No. 39 of 1909, but this Ordinance was dealing with specific work therein mentioned, and even in the subsequent re- ference to a judge under the 1909 Ordinance the Crown argued that Section 8 had determined the claimant's rights. The Crown failed in this contention on the ground that in other portions of the Ordinance there was provision for compensation by reason of the access to the sea being affected. (This is referred to in para 3 of the objects and reasons in the reference to Section 12 of the 1909 Ordinance). If the same contention is put forward under Section 6 of the present Bill, there is not the same answer as there was under the 1909 Ordinance, and it therefore appears to be desirable to make it clear in Section 6, that the rights of the claimant will only be extinguished as from the date of the definite approval of the works and without prejudice to any rights he may have had up to that time for the purposes of com- pensation.

I am to state that the Chamber is still strongly of opin- ion that there is grave objection on principle to the enactment of general legislation of the type proposed and that in place of a Bill as general in scope as the proposed measure,

the proposed measure, the introduction of a separate and special bill for each public work contemplated is greatly to be preferred.

I have the honour to be, Sir,

Your obedient Servant,

(Sgd.) M. F. KEY

Secretary.