01-930 6240
LORD CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE
HOUSE OF LORDS
LONDON S.W.1
7
My Murray FR. su
minute
Your ref (HKK 18/11) Our ref: 3632/314
attached V янс
Dear Dear Crutchley,
20th February, 1969.
21/2
ы
GEXT
REF.
Hong Kong Divorce Jurisdiction.
Would you please refer to your letter to me
of the 14th February? I need say no more on the question of powers than that I think Fiennes' construction of Section 2 of the Act of 1926 is correct It did occur to me that one could take the point
that now Section 1 that Act cannot be said to apply
at all to India, there is no longer any power to apply the Act tó a Colony under Section 2. But I think this would be a bad point and that "in like manner as they apply" must mean "as they now (s/c. in 1926) apply" to India.
There is one point which you may care to consider; if the current Divorce Reform Bill goes through, the law of England on divorce will differ very greatly (and not as now merely in minor respects) from that of Scotland, and patagraphs (a) and (b) of the Proviso to Section 1 (1) of the 1926 Act may produce some unexpected results for domiciled Scotsmen resident in Hong Kong. The same point now applies to Northern Ireland, because of Section 1 of the Colonial and Other Territories(Divorce Jurisdiction) Act 1950. I do not however see how this can be avoided.
The following points occur to me on the draft Rules:-
Rule 3 (11) : Is this the correct title for the Secretary of State.
Rule 7(e): If our Bill goes through, Matrimonial offences will, in England, be things of the past as far as they alford grounds for divorce; at least
14
916