Re Robinson's
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 20 March 1980 |
| Docket Number | Privy Council Appeal No 2 of |
| Date | 20 March 1980 |
| Court | Privy Council |
[1980] SGPC 1
Privy Council
Lord Wilberforce
,
Lord Edmund-Davies
,
Lord Russell of Killowen
,
Lord Scarman
and
Lord Lane
Privy Council Appeal No 2 of 1978
Peter Boydel QC and Richard Phillips (Coward Chance) for the appellants
William Glover QC and M Karthigesu (Turner Peacock) for the respondent.
Attorney General v Horner (1884) 14 QBD 245 (refd)
David v De Silva [1934] AC 106 (refd)
Land Acquisition Act (Cap 272, 1970 Rev Ed) ss 5 (1), 33 (1) (consd); ss 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 (1), 10 (2), 13, 16, 19, 48 (1)
Land–Compulsory acquisitions–Compensation payable–Acquisition within six months of land devastated or affected by fire–Whether acquisition of land occurs only upon land being possessed or upon declaration by President that land is required–Whether compensation reduced automatically as result of devastation or only if owners unable to deliver vacant possession before devastation–Whether acquisition caused loss of actual earnings–Sections 5 (1) and 33 (1) Land Acquisition Act (Cap 272, 1970 Rev Ed)
The questions in this appeal related to the compulsory acquisition of land. The building on the land was destroyed by fire on 21 November 1972. Subsequently, the land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act (Cap 272, 1970 Rev Ed) (“the Act”). The provisos to s 33 (1) of the Act called for the Collector to compensate the owners according to the market value of the land immediately before it was devastated having due regard to the fact that at the material time the land could not have been conveyed with vacant possession as it was subject to encumbrances, tenancies or occupation by squatters, such that the market value of such land should not exceed one-third of the value of such land had it been vacant land not subject to any such encumbrances, tenancies or occupation by squatters. Section 33 (1) (d) of the Act also called for the Collector to compensate the owners for the damage sustained by the owner by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting their actual earnings. The Collector contended that the land having been devastated by fire and acquired within six months thereafter, the proviso in s 33 (1) of the Act applied with the result that the owners were only entitled to one-third of the vacant land market value. He further contended that whether he was right or wrong on this first point, there should be no award under s 33 (1) (d)in respect of loss of actual earnings. The owners argued that acquisition under the Act occurred only upon taking possession, and since possession was taken well beyond six months from the devastation, the proviso did not apply. The owners also argued that the proviso did not apply since they would have been able to deliver vacant possession regardless of the devastation. The Court of Appeal agreed with the Collector on his first point. On his second point, the Court of Appeal held that the owners were entitled to compensation for loss of provable earnings, including future earnings, based on actualities. The owners appealed against the first decision and the Collector cross-appealed against the second.
Held, allowing the appeal and cross-appeal:
(1) The acquisition of the land started once the declaration by the President that the land “is needed” under s 5 of the Act was made. This was within six months of the devastation: at [9] to [11].
(2) The purpose of the provisos to s 33 (1) of the Act was to prevent an owner whose land was occupied by squatters or tenants from being fortuitously enriched by the removal of these persons in consequence of the devastation by being able to claim compensation on a vacant possession basis. Since the owners here would have been able to deliver vacant possession before the devastation, the provisos did not apply to reduce their compensation: at [14] and [20].
(3) In ordinary language, a man cannot be said to be injuriously affected as to his actual earnings unless at the time of the act causing the injurious affection, he had some earnings capable of being injuriously affected. Section 33 (1) (d) of the Act required that the loss of earnings be shown to have arisen by reason of the acquisition. In other words a business must have been on the land at the time of the acquisition. But at the time of the acquisition the land was devastated by fire and no business was being carried on there. If the owners suffered in their business by reason of the acquisition, it could only be a future loss. The devastation affected the owners' actual earnings: the acquisition merely prevented the owners from resuming business on the land at some future date when the devastation has been made good. The appellants were not entitled under s 33 (1) (d) of the Act to such future, or provable, earnings: at [19] and [20].
(delivering the judgment of the Board):
1 This appeal is from a judgment dated 29 September 1977 of the Court of Appeal in Singapore in which answers were given to questions raised by a case stated under the Land Acquisition Act (Cap 272) (“the Act”). The case was stated by the Appeals Board constituted under s 19 of the Act.
2 The questions relate to the compulsory acquisition of land situate at Raffles Place, Singapore. On the Government Resurvey Map this land is marked as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Three of a Kind?: Positive Prescription in Sri Lanka, South Africa and Scotland
...Civil Law and Common Law in South Africa (1996) 703.124 Buckland & McNai r Roman Law and Common Law 123.125 Jayasundera v Dantanarayana 1981 (1) SLR 1 4.226 STELL LR 2008 2© Juta and Company (Pty) physical control gives legal possession, unless the apparent possessor holds only as agent or ......