Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. Upon the outbreak of the war in 1914 and before any leave was granted to the defendants, the Government took possession of the reclaimed land and were ready to make a payment in lieu of rates to the overseers of the poor of the adjoining pariah if certified that the land was of that parish. In 1917, while the Government were still in possession of the land, the then overseers of the adjoining pariah brought an action in this High Court against the defendants claiming a declaration that the reclaimed land was part of that parish for nil civil and parochial purposes within the meaning of Section 27, Poor Law Amendment Act, 1868. Government objected to make the contribution until the question of whether the reclaimed land was extra-parochial or not was decided and suggestion early decision. Such a decision, it is apparent, could have obtained in no other way than by the suit under appeal in that case and the remedy by way of a declaration sought for in that appeal because the rating machinery could not be used as Government was not rateable and the railway company was not in beneficial occupation. In my view that was an extreme case. On the other hand, if the Court is to give a declaration to which lit can give effect it can only be that the order of dismissal of the appellant is void (and that is what the appellant says in para. 12 of his plaint). This means that he is entitled to have his pension restored to him. That remedy in my view would be clearly barred by Section 6, Pensions Act, which prohibits Courts of law from making any order or decree" by which the liability of Government to pay any such pension or grant as aforesaid is affected directly or indirectly." Clearly Government's liability would by such a declaration be directly affected; and even if the declaration is intended to be used to influence Government to restore the pension to the appellant, it would, in my opinion, rightly be described as indirectly affecting the liability of Government to do so. As regards the claim for damages it is conceded by the appellant that these could be exceedingly difficult to assess; and certainly, if these were to take the shape of so many years' pension, this again would be barred by Section 6, Pensions Act, and I can see no other basis of assessment. The alternatives seem to me either the restoration of the pension or in lieu thereof so many years' pension capitalised.