FIJI APPEAL CASE

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 56, 4 September 1923, Page 10

FIJI APPEAL CASE

HALLEN V. SPAETH

PRIVY COUNCIL JUDGMENT.

(FROM OUR OWN. CORRESPONDENT.)

. . ■ LONDON, 6th July. « the appeal case, Arthur ?nJi?L Rfc l jn rv' Benjamin Spaeth, was delivered a few days ago. lne.care was tned before Visoount Haldane Lord Buckmaster, Lord Parmoor, £! d J^.4 .Treyethin. It wiU be remembered that this was an appeal by the •defendant in an action from a judgment of-the Supreme Court of Fiji deciding that the respondent, the plaintiff (Spaeth), was entitled to recover fronv the appellant the sum of £4544 10s and coats. The sum mentioned represents the value, as ]aA^ Y the Acting-Chief Justice, who tried the case, of buildings, growing props, stock, and implements, on an estate in the oolony. ■...'....■' _ In. the course of their. judgment; their Lordships pointed out that, there having been no agreement between the appellant and the respondent as to the terms for a renewal, the appellant. became liable to pay for the buildings, crops, implements, and stock. He treated the sub-lessees as having been the agents of the respondent in bringing these into existence, and held that the appellant was liable for tho amount to bo ascertained on a valuation. So far their Lordships are in agreement with him, said Lord Haldane in giving judgment "They agree also with his fandings that Costello, his agent, had no authority to bind the appellant as to the valuation to be made,; that the appellant would have, been entitled to call for a referenoe and that the respondent wrongfully , resisted the taking of the ■ proper course. But the learned Judge went on after over-ruling the appellant's repudial tion of liability, to make the valuation himself, instead of ..directing an arbitration to take place in accordance with the terms of the lease. Their Lordships think tbat he was wrong m treating the question of valuation as one which a Court had .jurisdiction to try. The lease provides that the purchase is to take place on valuation, and that if the parties cannot. Bgres on the valuation all matters in difference thereto • are to be referred to arbitration, the arbitration to be subject to. the. provisions of the Common Law Procedure Act,. 1854. Their Lordships interpret this as meaning that th e amount of the valuation is to be suoh as may be determined in an arbitration. For then and not until then,, does a sum, which has to b e ascertained in chat fashion, become due and capable of affording a right of action The determination of thif sum is .not a matter of independent right for which a c aimant can go to the Courts. He is entitled only to what the arbitrators award. _If this construction be the true one-, it brings the case.within the principle of Scott v. A very (5 H.L.C. 811) whwh decided that, while by the Com! mon Law parties oould not contraot valid- &.£ °UM t C<™rt\ of their jurisdiction, they could contract that-no right of action derM^™ Untll a tW^f Person had to b e^ right^T* to. Wh!°h tWe *«•

NO COSTS ALLOWED ■, sued for the respondent that the sublease" by him could not have operated a*'a transfer, wssmuoh as it was not mi the form required by the Ordinanw for a inv nSt r- ? 6 P°^ nt i 9 not > hoover, of any importance, inasmuch - se .it is thn contract between the -,uwi and Ws sub-lessees.. *nd not-'-the estate which IZifkj}^'? the "^"nininl faotS It is. accordingly unneoessary to bonsider the argument that as the'sub-lease was v *v to hy tho Registrar whether properly or notyit must bo'construed • as. a document whicK the Ordin: li™ s not Pr»clud« from being opera"They will humbly advise His Majesty .'?.?'. % ?PP e.aJ should be allowed by setting aside the judgment for £4544 10s and costs,' and directing- the question of valuation to be referred to arbitration as provided by tho lease. As both parties hay© been in a considerable measure wrong in the contentions .they have set' up. tnere will be no costs either here or below."