9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the respondent was the "assign" of the original lessees within the meaning of the St. John's Municipal Acts, 1921 and 1926. 2. Whether the respondent was entitled to claim compensation for unexhausted improvements. 3. The validity of the Supreme Court's appointment of an arbitrator at the respondent's instance. 4. The legal effect of the various deeds and assignments on the respondent's claim. Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the respondent was the "assign" of the original lessees within the meaning of the St. John's Municipal Acts, 1921 and 1926: The primary question was whether the respondent qualified as an "assign" of the original lessees to claim compensation under the statutes. The statutes provided that at the expiration of a lease, the lessee or his assigns were entitled to compensation for improvements made. The Supreme Court's interpretation was that the assign must be the legal assign of the term at the lease's expiration. The Privy Council agreed with this interpretation but found it difficult to agree with the Supreme Court's conclusion that the respondent was such an assign. 2. Whether the respondent was entitled to claim compensation for unexhausted improvements: The respondent's claim hinged on proving that he was the legal assign of the original lessees. The lease from 1848 had been renewed and expired on May 1, 1929. The respondent traced his title back to a deed of December 12, 1912, where the original lessees' partnership assigned the lease to a newly formed company. This deed was duly registered, making the company the legal assign. However, the company went into voluntary liquidation in 1915, and its assets, including the leasehold, were distributed among shareholders without a formal assignment, complicating the respondent's claim. 3. The validity of the Supreme Court's appointment of an arbitrator at the respondent's instance: The Supreme Court had appointed an arbitrator based on the respondent's claim to be an assign. The appellant contested this, arguing that there was no arbitration issue because the respondent was not an assign under the statute. The Privy Council found that the respondent failed to establish his claim as a legal assign, thus invalidating the Supreme Court's appointment of the arbitrator. 4. The legal effect of the various deeds and assignments on the respondent's claim: The respondent's title was traced through several deeds, including a trust deed in 1921 and an assignment in 1921, which purported to transfer the leasehold interest. However, these deeds did not effectively make the respondent a legal assign because the trustee himself was not an assign. The respondent's advisers produced a deed poll from 1930, attempting to confirm the title, but the Privy Council found it legally ineffective. The deed poll was inoperative as it attempted to assign an interest that no longer existed and lacked the necessary formalities. The Privy Council criticized the irregularities in the liquidation process and emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory requirements. The appeal was allowed, and the order of the Supreme Court was discharged. The appellant was awarded costs for the appeal and the proceedings in the Supreme Court. The Privy Council advised His Majesty accordingly.
|
