4. Mr. Beard apparently took exception to the fact that he was not
called upon to act for the Commissioner immediately and on 25 May, 1967, for this and other reasons (including the state of his health) he
resigned his appointment.
In so doing Mr. Beard rendered himself
liable under the terms of his contract to penalties which the
Government of Hong Kong exocted.
5. Mr. Beard's case is that he entered into contract in the balicf
that in the absence of the Banking Commissioner he would be appointed
to act in his place. When, therefore, the opportunity arose and ho
was not so appointed he maintains that the failure of the authorities
to appoint him constituted a breach of contract or, alternatively, ho
claims that he was misled when he entered into the contract.
6.
The contract between Mr. Beard and the Government of llong Kong
and all the evidence show quite clearly that the Government of long
Kong acted reasonably end as they were fully entitled to do. Had tho
interval between Mr. Board's arrival and the Banking Commissioner's
departure on leave been longer or had the need arisen at some
subsequent date for an officer to act in the absence of the
Commissioner, it is likely that Mr. Beard would have been so appointed.
But there was never any intention that he should act for the
Commissioner immediately on his arrival, instead of Mr. Fox,
7. Mr. Beard's case was dealt with originally by the Government of
Hong Kong. It has been reviewed by that Government and they maintain
the view that they acted properly both in appointing a more
experienced officer in local affairs in June 1967 and in enforcing the
terms of their contract with Mr. Beard.
I
/ 8.