CODE 18-77
Reference....
relevant land (unless such descendants have bought into land previously held by other families). Even if the land succession law is reformed now, it would take many years for the effects to work through. This means that in practice the loss of revenue would be slight for the foreseeable future. I agree with HK Tel 1554, para 6, that there would be no inconsistency with JD 205/BL 122 (or BL 40 if applicable) since the rights of those entitled under those provisions would not be affected. However JD 204/BL 121 implies that all those to whom JD 205/BL 122 does not apply are subject to increasing rents. The problem is to reconcile JD 204/BL 121 and JD 156/BL 39. I suggest that this can be done by arguing that since the effect of JD 156/BL 39 is clear, JD 204/BL 121 must be read in the light of it, by saying that the purpose of the reference to rent at 3% of rateable value is to establish a maximum liability. It follows that the Government must refrain from collecting the whole amount in circumstances where to do so would amount to sex discrimination.
14. Small houses
•
This policy is not protected by the JD, nor specifically referred to in the BL. It is, arguably, protected under BL 40 as a "traditional right or interest". Abolition, though clearly politically difficult, might be defended by arguing (i) that it is not a "traditional" right or interest and (ii) such rights or interests are in any event qualified by the word "lawful" If a traditional right is abolished by the BR or by any other law, it would no longer be within the protection of BL 40. I would welcome HKG's views on this possibility. Extension of the same right to women (or female descendants?) would, if land succession law is not also changed, not necessarily result in many more applications since tenure of relevant land is a pre-requisite to entitlement to apply. Even if it did, the result would presumably be either greater density of building or a longer waiting list. The interests of existing beneficiaries would be affected, but not abolished. An already qualified right would simply be qualified further. This should be defensible under BL 40, again by relying on the qualifying word "lawful" and the need to interpret it in the light of BL 39.
15. Land Succession Law
Clearly land succession could not be abolished; the only option for reform would be to extend equal inheritance rights to daughters as well as sons. This would be more difficult to defend under BL 40 since there is no argument that these rights are not traditional and it could be argued that the extension of inheritance rights to females does detract from the right of all NT inhabitants to have land
K12ABR
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.