In
The
68
from the legal aspect. I must however refer to the practical difficulties inherent in this problem. There is the fundamental and possibly insuperable difficulty in many cases of establishing the precise extent of the loss by denial. Burma, for instance, plant was denied to the Japanosu. Jo panoso, where the plant was essentiel, took steps to rostoro it (how officiontly it is not known). Then when they rotrusted they took steps to deny it to the British. To determine in these circumstances tho domage by the original donicl mecsures would be practically impossible. It would be very difficult, therefore, for a claiment to ostablish with (ny dogrue of certinty the proportion of the total damage done to his property by "denial". In the ccse of tho Burma cl^ims, they show in most cases programmes of destruction by "denial" with affidavits as to the execution of the programne. It is however impracticable to form any reliable conclusion as to how fur those denial operations created dan go to the claimants' property because no opportunity in most casos crose of inspecting the property until after the expulsion of the Japanese when the property was again in the possession of the claimants. Apart from what may have boon done in the interval by the Japanoso by way of restoration and subsequent "denials", there was often demogo by bombing in the intorvel. Or again the enemy forcos may havo takon plant which may or may not have been effectively destroyed in the original "denic1". I am not aware to what extent the position as regards Burma "donial" claims corresponās with the position regarding similar claims in Melaye, I imagine that whatever may be the letter, of the low, it is probable that it would be extremely difficult if not impossible for cleiments in many cases to establish a logel claim or its extent. There are of course good reasons for duciding that compensation awards must be on the broadest possible basis covering all kinds of damago which might be regarded as attributable to the operations of war, whether it rose from one or other of the warring sidãos. It is moreover in the general interests of the claimants as a whole that owing to the limitation of ove iloblo funds compensation should be awarded on a wide agrood besis,
4. I need herdly stress the additional difficulties to your cuministration in dooling with "donicl" claims on a logal basis, not only from the point of view of the technical stoff available to examine such claims but also from the point of view of difficulty of proof, assessment etc., many years after any "denial" took place. It seems to me therefore that in so for as agreement is possible on this matter botwoon cleimonts end the Malayan Governments agreement should be sought along the lines of the problem being dealt with as one of general war damago (oxcopt perhaps in the case of the War Risks (Goods) Insurance scheme where I understund that "donial" is considered to be a risk covered by the Schomo but that the amount of the claims is relatively small). I realise, however, that there may be cases where claimants will, or consider that they will, be able successfully to
"donial" claim against the Government on lugul grounds. It is for consideration therefore whether a claimant should be informed that he can opt for his claim to be dealt with for un ox-gratia sward under the general won demago compensation schumo, in which caso accoptence of such an cword would have to be considered in full settlement of all aspects of the claim in respect of that particular property; or for his claim to be dealt with on a legal basis whon ho would have to sccupt the risk of foiling to substantiate his cinim on that basis, in which event ho would not subsequently
/bc
Page 70Page 71
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.