Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Reports of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands

  Download original PDF

Simiron v Trust Territory [1987] TTLawRp 1; 8 TTR 615 (27 January 1987)

8 TTR 615

YCHITARO SIMIRON, Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

TRUST TERRITORY OF THE PACIFIC ISLANDS, STATE OF TRUK, Defendants-Appellees

Civil Appeal No. 429

Appellate Division of the High Court

Truk District

January 27, 1988

Appeal by plaintiffs from dismissal of three consolidated cases alleging that government dredging activities in marine areas below the high watermark resulted in the destruction of traditional fishing and shellfood gathering grounds, and seeking compensation for the destruction of these grounds and for the value of all dredge materials taken. The Appellate Division of the High Court, per curiam, affirmed the dismissal of the actions, holding that the government, as owner of all marine areas below the high watermark, had the absolute right to conduct such dredging operations.

1. Appeal and Error-De Novo Review-Dismissal

Dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is a ruling on a question of law and is subject to de novo review.

2. Appeal and Error-De Novo Review-Foreign Law

Questions of foreign law, like questions of domestic law, are matters that appellate courts may determine de novo.

3. Waters-High Watermark-Government Ownership

Decision in Nipwech Ungeni v. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, 8 T.T.R. 366 (1983), placing the burden on the government to prove whether the Japanese took ownership of marine areas below the high watermark is overruled; Appellate Division reached conclusion, as a matter of law, that the Japanese owned all marine areas below the high watermark during their administration of the islands.

4. Waters-High Watermark-Government Ownership

Any traditional fishing rights are subject to the inherent rights of the government as owner of all marine areas below the high watermark. 67 TTC § 2.

5. Waters-High Watermark-Government Ownership

Traditional owners of marine areas below the high watermark were not entitled to compensation for alleged damage to their fishing rights caused by government dredging operations, since the government, as owner of all marine areas below the high watermark, had the absolute right to conduct such dredging operations.