Sessional_Paper_1949 — Page 63

59

11. Although an owner has had ample time to do the clearance if he had wanted to do so, it is obviously desirable not to give the appearance of hardship by not giving him another opportunity to do the removal himself. I do not however see why such opportunity can be given only the new Bill. I suggest that if the principle is accepted, Government should at once issue an announcement by way of general notice that Government intends to introduce as soon as possible a Bill in the Legislative Council under which Government will be empowered to remove debris from any land if such debris is not removed by the owner by a certain date say 3 months from notice, and that the cost of such removal will be a charge on the land. This date can then be put in the bill, which may be within a short time from the passing of the Bill.

12. Under the provisions of such a Bill, I do not think that it is necessary to provide for the Bill to come into operation as regards specified areas by Proclamation, for the D.P.W. can proceed to any lot he chooses after the fixed date.

(Signed)

M. K. Lo,

27.10.47.

APPENDIX "C".

NOTE BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

Subject:-War Damaged Property.

The Note prepared by the Hon. M. K. Lo and attached to (37) is most valuable since it does much to clarify the issue in this difficult problem. Mr. Lo's ultimate conclusion (para. 4) is that the individual owner and not the public should bear the cost of clearance of bombed sites and he suggests (para. 10 of his note) that special legislation should be enacted giving Government power to enter upon such sites and clear them, thereafter obtaining a charge on land (ultimately enforceable by order of the Court for sale of such sites) upon failure by an owner to re-pay to Government the costs incurred in clearance.

2. Mr. Lo's suggestion avoids the alternative of the procedure of resumption the objection to which is the cost entailed in payment of compensation even if the amount of compensation were reduced by the consideration that Government would be resuming property to which the necessity for, and cost of, clearance would attach.

tions-

3.

4.

It seems to me, however, that Mr. Lo's suggestion is open to the objec-

(a) that Government would be involved in the necessity for application to the Court to recover expenditure on site clearance in each case where an owner refuses to meet the bill; and

(b) that the site would remain in private ownership and Government would have no control over future building on such site, apart from enforce- ment of structural requirements.

I therefore advance for consideration another suggestion, i.e. that the pro- cedure of re-entry be applied to uncleared War Damaged Property for failure to perform covenants to keep in repair, such covenants being common form in the majority of Crown leases. The failure to keep in repair, although the failure be due to bombing, would I consider represent a breach of covenant and entitle re-entry since a line of cases (Empire Digest p. 371) following from Paradine v. Jane a case of 1647 support such view.