measures. I feel sure that this will be
accepted as the only basis which can
logically be defended and that there are
A fairness
-
no good grounds on which the creation of
denial a specially favoured category of/claims
could be justified.
(ii) It is thought that no les al liability
exists against Government except in cases
where legal liability can be established
under the local Defence Regulations.
(iii) Nevertheless there may be cases in
which legal liability can be established under the Compensation) De fence/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, and thie
(which
a
favourable position can not be justified on
fairness
any grounds of equity.
(i) where legal liability against Government
eould be proved, the liability must be met by
the local Government,
3. The difficulties which would arise
if any other basis than that set out in
Were Taken
paragraph 2 above, can perhaps be judged by
reference to the final paragraph of Section 4
of Mr. Allen's Report.
7 local
? ption
Inset
1/4
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.