- 2 -
apparent that the Chinese side are most unlikely to dilute
this document further, since they argued that the title
cannot be changed and is required by the Chinese Civil
Code.
4.
Failure to agree to serve this document would
render much of the provisional agreement nugatory, since it
is a key document in the procedure for civil claims in
China.
5.
The nature of the language now proposed is still
peremptory but, as the Chinese side has pointed out during
discussions, "no more peremptory than that in the Writ of
Summons or Originating Summons they have agreed to serve on
behalf of Hong Kong. The Hong Kong documents, however, do
not impose an obligation to respond or to go to court.
1
6.
The service of this document would be contrary
to established practice in Hong Kong but is specifically
included in paragraph No. 1 of the provisional agreement.
7.
The document does not spell out the full
consequences of failure to respond to it. Although judgment
might be given in a defendant's absence, the other
consequences referred to in Annex B might also follow.
8.
It is quite possible that there might be an
incident which will trigger a suggestion that the Hong Kong
Courts have lent a colour of their authority to a procedure
which can result in travel and other restrictions. As
Page 105Page 106