claims where the loss or damage
was due to "denial" measures. I feel
sure that this will be accepted as the
only basis which can logically be defended
and that there are no good grounds of
fairness on which the creation of a
specially favoured category of
"denial" claims could be justified.
(ii) it is thought that no legal liability
exists against Government except
in cases where it can be established
Hompensation)
under the local Defence Regulations.
(iii) nevertheless there may be cases in
(iv)
which legal liability can be
established under the Defence (Compensation)
Regulations, although when those Regulations
were drafted, extensive denial measures
necessitated by imminent enemy
Occupation of the Colony had not been
envisaged.
Cases where a claimant
is able, in spite of practical difficulties,
to prove legal liability against Government,
must be considered as the exception,
rather than the rule, which would place
the claimant in an exceptionally favourable
position in relation to other persons who
have suffered war damage to their property,
a favourable position which cannot be
justified on any grounds of fairness,
where legal liability against Government
can be proved, the liability must be met
by the local Government.
52.
3.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.