ng months that went for these in the hottest Portadown, yo\ Betul din pla planta ang tablet 12 ka biath mats halt@%$+2TpaTgShaykal, m
Page 3 -
L. Lightman, Esq., Department of Trade
...
18 January, 1978
My personal involvement in matters originated from a letter addressed to me from Mr. Thompson - the Chairman of the MTR. This letter was dated 18 August, 1977 and was directed towards difficulties arising from interpretations of the contract. He asked me to visit Hong Kong later in the year.
The GKL Joint Venture is managed by an autonomous Board made up of three directors - one from each of the participants in the Joint Venture. I, therefore, cleared my own position with the Joint Venture since it would have been most improper of me to enter into contract discussions with Mr. Thompson concerning contractual matters by-passing the Management Board.
I then initiated an investigation into the background to this problem and from this investigation it became clear to me that the MTR maintained that our qualification concerning additional costs was withdrawn where as all the evidence before me was that our qualification remains.
On 24 October I informed Mr. Thompson by letter of the results of my investigation and asked if he would investigate the matter on his side. I also enclosed a copy of a written opinion from Mark Saville, Q.C. concerning this matter.
By letter dated 9 November, 1977 Mr. Thompson informed me that he had conducted an investigation and was satisfied that qualification 1.5. had been withdrawn.
My arranged meeting with Mr. Thompson took place on Wednesday, 30 November, 1977. At this meeting Mr. Thompson declined to even discuss in general terms the matter I had brought to his attention. The meeting finished very quickly.
Following this meeting I instructed our solicitor to take professionally prepared statements from our representatives at the negotiations of February 1976 and have, on the basis of these, obtained further advice from Counsel. Counsel is entirely satisfied that the evidence supports our position.
Since large sums of money are involved and we are at an apparent impasse in resolving matters with the MTR there seems to be no other course of action open to us than to take the matter to the Courts in Hong Kong to seek a judgement as to the nature of the contract.
Just recently, the MTR have advertised for contractors to pre-qualify for Stage II of the Mass Transit Scheme. Once again, this has drawn little response from British Contractors since their opinion of the MTR and their form and application of the Contract has not altered.
continued/...