CONFIDENTIAL
WE THEREFORE SEE NO REASON TO ISSUE A DIRECTION RELATING TO THE
SPHERES OF INTEREST POLICY, AND MOREOVER WOULD NOT WISH TO ISSUE DIRECTION OVERRIDING THE REST OF THE GUIDANCE, MUCH OF WHICH OUT TO APPLY IN THIS CASE. INCIDENTALLY CHAND 4399 WAS SUPERSEDED BY
CMND 6400 AND THUS IS NO LONGER VALID.
4. WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE DEFINITION OF BRITISH AIRLINES IN SECTION 3(1) OF THE 1971 ACT FAVOURS UK BASED AIRLINES AND NOT HONG KONG BASED AIRLINES. HOWEVER YOU HAVE DRAWN ATTENTION TO THE BRACKETED WORDS IN SECTION 3(1)(A) AND THE CAA HAS A DUTY TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THOSE WORDS AS MUCH AS THE REST OF SECTION 3(1)(A). INDEED THIS MATTER WILL NO DOUBT BE ARGUED AT THE HEARING.
5. MR NOTT'S DECISION THAT THE HEARING SHOULD TAKE ITS NORMAL COURSE DOES NOT PRECLUDE HIM FROM GIVING A DIRECTION ONCE IT IS OVER. THIS WOULD THEN BE GIVEN IN THE LIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE WHICH WILL BE
SUBMITTED TO THE CAA. AFTER THE CAA'S DECISION HAS BEEN ANNOUNCED ANY PARTY, INCLUDING CPA IF RELEVANT, IS OF COURSE FREE TO APPEAL TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRADE. WHETHER OR NOT AN APPEAL HAD BEEN LODGED, IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE FOR THE HONG KONG GOVERNMENT TO PUT ITS CASE TO THE UK GOVERNMENT, IF THE DECISION WAS CONTRARY TO HONG KONG'S INTEREST. IT WOULD ALSO BE OPEN TO THE SECRETARY OF
STATE FOR TRADE TO CONSULT THE HONG KONG GOVERNMENT IN CONSIDERING
ANY APPEAL. SUCH CONSULTATIONS COULD CONTRIBUTE TO A VARIATION OF
THE CAA'S DECISION BY THE ISSUE OF A DIRECTION.
6. WE DO NOT CONSIDER IT APPROPRIATE TO ADOPT YOUR SUGGESTION OF A HEARING IN HONG KONG BY AN AUGMENTED A T L A, FOLLOWED BY A DIRECTION TO THE CAA TO ISSUE A LICENCE TO THE AIRLINES SELECTED (YOUR OPTION C). THE CAA HAS STATUTORY PROCEDURES TO FOLLOW AND MR NOTT DOES NOT THINK IT RIGHT THAT THESE SHOULD DE OVERRIDDEN,
7. THE QUESTION RAISED IN PARAGRAPH 8 (1) OF THE FIRST TELEGRAM UNDER REFERENCE AS TO WHETHER THE CAA OR ATLA HEARING SHOULD BE HELD FIRST IS DIFFICULT. ON BALANCE, WE WOULD PREFER THE CAA'S TO TAKE PLACE FIRST. IN PARTICULAR WE ARE MINDFUL OF THE FACT THAT
THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR APPEAL IN THE ATLA PROCEDURES, IN CONTRAST TO THE CAA PROCEDURES AND IN THE LATTER THERE IS ALSO THE POSSIBILITY OF CONSULTATION BETWEEN YOU AND US IF APPROPRIATE, AS
REFERRED TO IN PARAGRAPH 5 ABOVE. WE WOULD PREFER THE ATLA HEARING
CONFIDENTIAL