Whyatt CJ:

The facts and arguments appear sufficiently from the judgment below.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Board constituted under the Singapore Essential Regulations dismissing a claim by the appellants in respect of large quantities of petroleum which were seized as war booty by the armed forces of the Crown on the re-occupation of Singapore on 5 September 1945. The appellants contend that the petroleum was their property and not, as the respondents allege, the property of the Japanese State and in support of their contention, they rely upon two broad submissions, first, that they had a valid title to the petroleum under municipal law, and, secondly, that they were never lawfully deprived of their title by the Japanese belligerent occupant.

Before examining these submissions in detail, it will be convenient to set out the relevant facts which have been proved or admitted in the course of these lengthy proceedings. The appellants are three oil companies, incorporated in Holland, who prior to the outbreak of the war with Japan in 1941, carried on the business of producers and refiners of oil in Sumatra. Between them, they held all the concessions in Suma