Ecolex Logo
El portal del
derecho ambiental
Resultados de la búsqueda » Jurisprudencia

Frame v The Minister for Lands Surveys and Environment

País/Territorio
Papua Nueva Guinea
Tipo de la corte
Otros
Fecha
Dic 21, 1979
Fuente
UNEP, InforMEA
Nombre del tribunal
National Court of Justice
Juez
Raine
Número de referencia
(1979) PNGLR 626
Idioma
Inglés
Materia
Agricultura y desarrollo rural, Tierra y suelos
Palabra clave
Expropiación Responsabilidad/indemnización
Resumen
The appellant’s coffee plantation was acquired compulsorily under the Lands Acquisition Act 1974. He appealed against the amount of compensation determined by the Minister. The Constitution of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea provided: “Subject to this section, just compensation must be made on just terms by the expropriating authority (…)” The court therefore had to decide what exactly compensation on just terms in this case was. It emphasized that this was a valuation issue. The court was of the view that the previously determined amount was a figure that ignored improvements of the land in question. According to the relevant Act there were two ways in which one could deal with improvements. Firstly, one could simply value the land, then adding a realistic sum for improvements. Secondly, one could do a global valuation, looking at the land in its improved state. It concluded that the amount awarded was palpably unjust. The court found that in order to apply recognized valuation principles a valuation would, inter alia, have to pay regard to the current prices for coffee, the improvements to the land, the fact that the coffee of the appellant was in great demand, being very high quality, the fact that on the highest of probabilities the plantation’s production would be maintained for some time at least at past levels, the fact that if prices did fall sharply in a year or two that the existence of the Coffee Industry Fund took care of that risk to an extent, and finally, the fact that because of the time at which the plantation was acquired, the appellant was denied about two-thirds of his income for the year of acquisition, as May, June, July and August were the peak production months. Bearing in mind the excellent results achieved by the appellant, his many improvements, and the undoubted efficiency of the whole operation, the court regarded the previous valuation as one that was open to strong attack. Accordingly, it determined a higher compensation to be paid to the appellant.
Texto completo
626.html