26/06/1953

OF APPEAL (CIVIL, SUPERIOR)

CAMILLERI LUIGI A., MONTANARO GAUCI A.J., HARDING WILLIAM

ANDREW FRACIS JOSEPH GRANT NE vs CHEV. ERIK GOLLCHER NE

N/A

-

N/A

APPEAL - COMPENSATION (EMERGENCY) REGULATIONS 1943 - EMERGENCY COMPENSATION BOARD - GOVERNMENT NOTICE 326 OF 1943 - JUDGEMENT - JURISDICTION - NULLITY - REG. 59 OF THE MALTA DEFENCE REGULATIONS 1939 - REQUISITION

According to the Malta Defence Regualtions, no statutory appela lies from a decision fo teh Emergency Cmpensation Board. This, however, does not mean that the Board is altogether free from liabilityto review by teh Courts of Law. that Board exercises judical function; because it has hte power todecide a qestion of lga right in a dispute between parties involving the finding of facts, and teh application of the law to those facts. But the control of the Courts of Law over the decision of tehEmergency Compnesation baord is limited tot eh research whether there is anything "utlra vires" inthe decision, or whether the rules of natural justice have been infringed. In the case of premiesewhich were requirsition before teh enactment of art. 59 of teh Malta Defence Regulations by Government Notice 326/1942, teh assessment of compensation by teh Board remained governed by those Regualtionsm, which imposed no limitation with regard to the component elements of the compensation assessable by the Board; and consequent;y that assessment was left in the discretion of teh Board, which could even take into consideration the element of damage in the assessment of the rental compensation;and that discretion cannot be revised by the ordinary Court. But when that regulation 59 was re-enacted in 1943, a set of rides was laid down to guide the Board ins uch assessment; which rules applied only to cases of compensation for the possession, requistion or works ordered after the date of enactmend. The Board, therefore, cannot apply regualtion 59, as amended in 1943, to cases of compensation arising before that enactment. Such an application is a wrong application of the law. But a wrong application fo teh law, which does not apply regulation 59, as amended in 1943, to cases of compensation arising before that enactment. Such an application is a wrong application of the law. But a wrong application of the law, which does not apply to the case, is not an act of excess of jurisdiction , and does not render the judgement null and void. Such a wrong application fo teh law would lead to a decision which is based on an error of law, which has nothing to do with jurisdiction.And consequently, a decsiion of teh Emergency Compensation Board which applies to a case of assessment of compensation arising before the enactment of the Compensation (Emergency) Regualtions of 1943the rules set out by the latter Regualtions, is not a case of excess of jurisdiction on teh part ofthe board; and is not subject to revision by the ordinary Courts on that ground. Nor is a decsion ofthat Board subject to revision by teh ordinary Courts as being given "ultra vires" on teh ground ofits assessing an enhanced compensation, as is the case in which a compensation is awarded for a period longer than that for which it is claimed.