시
CONFIDENTIAL
all the properties in question.
2.
They also handed over a written note about the case (attached). This was unusual both in form and manner. The NCNA would not normally give us a written communication on such a subject. The note itself looked as though it had been written by a Hong Kong lawyer and was phrased in a way more acceptable to legal argument than diplomatic exchanges.
5.
Having consulted the Acting Governor and the Attorney General, I have now replied to the NCNA to say that the question at issue is one of ownership of property. It is in order to decide such issues that the courts exist. They are independent of the executive branch of the Government. Although we have noted the concern expressed by NCNA, it is not a matter in which the Government can interfere.
I then gave them two suggestions to pass on to the China company's lawyers about ways of seeking to prevent the disposal of the property before the case had finally been decided in the courts. Since the original NCNA approach had suggested that they were expecting the Government to intervene, I phrased my reply in order to get a denial from them that this was the case. They did so, as you will see from the attached record of conversation.
6.
Whatever the decision of the courts, there are considerable implications. If judgment goes in favour of the company in China, this could well open the way for other claims against companies established in Hong Kong at the time of the Communist victory
which later severed their connections with the Mainland. If the judgment goes against the China company, it is
just possible that the case could be used in an argument against giving compensation for British or Hong Kong-
owned companies in China. If, because of the latter possibility, you want further details, please let me
know.
(D C Wilson)
CC
RJT McLaren Esq Far Eastern Department
M W Atkinson Esq MBE PEKING
CONFIDENTIAL
ело