THE HATUMA CASE.

Waikato Argus, Volume V, Issue 366, 12 November 1898, Page 2

THE HATUMA CASE.

The Court; of Appeal has given judgment in this case for compensation for land taken under the Land for Settlement Act. The judgment, which was delivered by Mr Justice Pennefather, is in favour of the claimant on all points. The Court held that it would be contrary to the plain wording of the Lands for Settlement Act to say that the compensation under that Act should be assessed on any other principles than those applicable ander the Public Works Act. The authorities applicable to the latter Acts were to the effect that when Parliament gives compensation the sense of the matter is that the owner is to have what will be compensation to him, for the loss to him by the taking of the land. In all, such cases, if the compensation is to be a reality, the Court, although not giving sentimental damages, must take into consideration all the circumstances of the case and give such an amount as will place the owner in the same position financially as if his land had not been takeu. Compensation should not, therefore, be limited to the fair selling value of the land, but should cover also other losses which the owner might sustain by reason of his land being taken. As regards the selling value, something more might, iu the discretion of the Compensation Court, be allowed than the market price, which could be obtained by an owner anxious to sell, and an addition of 10 per cent, on this account was commonly made, and might be made, if thought fit. So also it followed from the above principles that the Compensation Court should allow for the expense and delay in the reinvestment of the purchase money, and for the loss likely to be sustained on the forced sale of sheep and stock on the estate being taken. Whether or not the Compensation Court was in general precluded from allowing an amendment of the claim, so as to specify the heads of compensation not originally claimed, there was no reason why the Court should not in this case award compensation under each of the above heads, as they were all of them really involved in the general claim which had been made for compensation for the taking of the land. The Court therefore answered all the questions put by the case in favour of the claimant, except the seventh, which ib was unnecessary to answer. (BY TELEGRAPH—PRESS ASSOCIATION). Wellington, Last Night. In their judgment as to the basis on which compensation should be paid by the Government for the seizure of the Hatuma Estase, Hawke's Bay, for settlement purposes, the Supreme Court Judges held that all the provisions of the Public Works Act applied and that compensation to be awarded was not expressly modified by the Land for Settlement Act. As to the question of how the amouut was to be arrived at, if compensation were to be a reality the court must take into consideration all the circumstances, and fee what sum of money would place the dispossessed man in pos. session of a property,as similar as possible to that he was in before. This was not to include sentimental losses, but only such a sum as would place the owner in a similar position financially. Compensation to dispossessed owners must also iuclude compensation for their expenses and loss from delay which, in the judgment of the Compensation Court would be incurred in re-investing the money •

awarded. As a matter of principle it appeared to the Court that the loss in dispossession of sheep by a forced sale was a necessary incident in the compulsory taking of a sheep farm, and that, therefore, compensation for it must be awarded. As to whether the Compensation Court had power to award compensation under the above heading, though not specially meutioned is the claim, the question was not whether, as a matter of pleading, it would have been more correct to enumerate them, but whether the Court was precluded from awarding compensation. Now, considering that it was the owner's loss rather than the value to the taker which was the proper test when the land was taken, that the £lO per centum additional (if awarded) came under heading " Liberal estimation," that the expense of re-investing was within the principle of Regina v. The Hull Dock Company, and that when the Government acquired a sheep station it must be taken to know that the sheep would have to be disposed of, it appeared to the Supreme Court that the Compensation Court might proceed if it thought fit to award compensation under those headings,without respondent being in any way taken by surprise or unfairly. An application *as made to the Appeal Court for leave to appeal to the Privy Council in the case. The Court took time to consider the question whether it had power to give leave in such cases.