ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
31 March 1998
Before: FC Hamon Esq., Deputy Bailiff
Between Lesquende Limited Plaintiff
AndThe Planning & Environment Committee of JerseyDefendant
Applications by the Plaintiff for Orders:
Advocate M G Voisin for the Plaintiff
Advocate W J Bailhache for the Defendant
JUDGMENT
THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:This is a summons by Lesquende Limited which initially sought the determination of four issues, but one has been withdrawn as it has been agreed between the parties.
The first issue asks this Court (in my view surprisingly) to determine the meaning of that part of the Order of the Privy Council dated 11 February 1998 which states:-
"THE LORDS OF THE COMMITTEE in obedience to His late Majestys said Order in Council have taken the Appeal and humble Petition on both sides Their Lordships do this day agree humbly to report to Your Majesty as their opinion that (1) this Appeal ought to be allowed and the Judgment and act of Court of the Court of Appeal of Jersey dated 1st November 1996 set aside, (2) the Royal Court has jurisdiction to order the acquiring party in arbitration proceedings to pay to the party from whom the lands have been acquired pursuant to the Compulsory Purchase of Land (Procedure)(Jersey) Law 1961 all reasonable costs incurred by him in the proceedings before the Board of Arbitrators and ..."
If that were not surprising enough the solicitors representing the Committee wrote a letter to the Registrar of the Privy Council on 20 March 1998 (after judgment) and asked this question:- "In considering whether Lesquende has incurred costs reasonable for the purpose of making a claim against the Planning and Environment Committee for reimbursement of its costs pursuant to Article 14(2) of the Compulsory Purchase of Land (Procedure)(Jersey) Law 1961 is the Royal Court entitled to take into account the amount of the award and the circumstances of any offers made prior to the award being handed down?" Even more surprisingly on 26 March the London solicitors acting for Lesquende wrote a detailed letter in reply to the letter sent on 20 March to the Registrar.
Not surprisingly, the Registrars reply of 27 March was very much to the point. "I am instructed to inform you that Their Lordships are not prepared to give any directions on the questions raised in your letter. Your clients if minded to do so should address it to the Royal Court for their consideration."
This morning, I have heard detailed and interesting argument from both Counsel. It seems to me to be invidious for me to attempt to analyse the judgment of so senior a Court as the Privy Council. The dilemma is not to be long-lasting because I find the judgment of the Privy Council to be perfectly clear.
There has been an arbitration. The Privy Council has said that this Court has jurisdiction (it does not say discretion) to order the acquiring party to pay to the party from whom the lands have been acquired reasonable costs incurred by him in proceedings before the Board of Arbitrators. The Privy Council has done what it was asked to do and interpreted Article 14(2) of the Law. In the circumstances, I am not prepared to attempt analytical argument of the judgment except to say that I cannot see that what proceeded before the Board by way of offer and counter-offer has anything to do with the decision that Their Lordships made. Those offers and counter-offers are procedural necessities which determine whether the compulsory purchase proceedings will be enforced.
There has been an arbitration. Costs were incurred and the acquiring party shall pay the reasonable costs incurred in that arbitration. Whether or not the costs are reasonable will be decided by the Greffier upon taxation.
What happens when the new Arbitration Board sits and makes its decision is not for me to contemplate. By analogy, workmen have built a house. The fact that the house now has to be taken down and re-built does not in my view affect the work that has already been carried out and where the law provides that the workmen shall be paid for what has been reasonably carried out.
The other points are as easily determined. A date has to be fixed. Advocate Bailhache is taking a sabbatical in the latter part of this year but Advocate Voisin has no objection to leaving the matter over and therefore on point 2, I shall fix three weeks on 8 February 1999 for the hearing of the issues raised in paragraph 5(i), (ii) and (iii) of the defendant’s re-amended answer.
On point 4, I order that the £2,750 paid by Lesquende in respect of the cost order of the Greffier Substitute dated 24 July 1997 shall be repaid within one month to Lesquende, with interest at the Court rate from today to the date of repayment.
Authorities
Re Elgindata Ltd. (No.2) [1993] 1 All ER 232 CofA