Examination of Witnesses (Questions 5940
- 5959)
5940. CHAIRMAN: Now you want something
different?
5941. MS JONES: Yes.
5942. CHAIRMAN: Is it in your revised
text?
5943. MS JONES: It is.
5944. CHAIRMAN: In that case, it will
be negotiated with the Promoters and we will come to some conclusion
about it.
5945. MS JONES: I see. I apologise, I
thought that you wanted me to set out the principles.
5946. CHAIRMAN: Yes, but I just want
to see what the outcome is going to be.
5947. MS JONES: In that particular aspect,
what I am asking for is that the Promoters make good all damage
and that there is no question of materiality because what we do
not want to do is have to argue with the Promoters as to what
is material or not. For example, if you have one very large crack
in your property, is that actually material? I do not know whether
that is. The whole point of this is so that we do not have to
and that the Settlement Deed avoids the possibility of litigation
and dispute as far as is possible.
5948. The next point is that in the Settlement
Deed it is quite restricted and, unless you are a very expert
tunnelling engineer, I do not know whether you would actually—
5949. CHAIRMAN: Where is this now?
5950. MS JONES: It is the paragraph at
the end of page 3 which starts, "The Committee also stated".[11]
5951. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
5952. MS JONES: "The Committee also
stated that it was any damage which occurred due to the tunnelling
and associated works, not just", as is set out in the Settlement
Deed, "from ground settlement associated with the nominated
undertaker's tunnelling works." Settlement is defined quite
precisely in the Deed and seems to me to be quite restrictive.
Some damage might occur from other ground movements which might
technically not be called `settlement' and it might not be in
response to the excavation of certain specific items which are
set out there. We do not know what the precise definition of the
construction works is and it only relates to the works authorised
by the Act, so, if the undertaker does something which is not
authorised, then it does not seem to me that that should be excluded
from the provisions of the Settlement Deed. That is between the
Secretary of State and the undertaker and we should not lose out
in that way, so what I am asking for is that whatever loss in
terms of damage that we sustain arising out of the construction
of the tunnels is either made good by the Promoters or the Promoters
pay the cost of that.
5953. CHAIRMAN: Would something that
was done by the nominated undertaker which is not authorised be
within the powers of the Act?
5954. MS JONES: I suppose it would not
be within the powers of the Act, but it would certainly be within
the powers of the undertaker because he may just do that.
5955. CHAIRMAN: Would it be within the
powers of the Act?
5956. MS JONES: I think I will have to
defer to others on that, but I suspect it would not be.
5957. CHAIRMAN: That is what I thought,
in which case it is not a matter for us, is it?
5958. MS JONES: Again, my Lord—
5959. CHAIRMAN: It is unexpected consequential
damage from some unauthorised act?
11 Committee Ref: A29, Petitioner's proposed amended
Deed of Settlement (SCN-20080318-008) Back
| 
