Baileys Shaw & Gillett
Mark Lennox-Boyd MP/3
3 October 1991
In view of the above we urge that Mr Lau's application is re-submitted the BLD whose decision we would challenge as follows:
1.
to
The BLD informed you that under Hong Kong law Mr Lau's claim was no longer valid. The claim period elapsed in August 1979 and his claim was out of time. This situation arose because Mr Lau and his brother did not obtain the Letters of Administration for their father's estate until 1983, some four years after the claim period had expired. The BLD accepted this was due to a family disagreement but went on to state that until 1983 the Hong Kong government were unable to identify person to whom the compensation should be paid.
the
This is, of course, not true. In 1979 when Mr Lau learned of compulsory purchase he immediately instructed Hong Kong solicitors, Messrs Johnson Stokes & Master, who received a reply from the District Office Sai Kung on 20th April 1979 confirming that compensation would be released to Mr Lau's legal representatives or successors when the relevant documents had been presented to the office for inspection. It seems to us that as soon as Mr Lau became aware of the compulsory purchase he took steps by instructing solicitors to ascertain the position concerning compensation for the compulsory acquired
land. This is borne out by the letters to the District Office of Sai Kung and their response. Mr Lau at this stage felt that his solicitors on his behalf were taking all steps necessary to deal with the compensation award and in fact was not aware nor was he advised either by his solicitors or by the District Office that there was a five year limitation period and which period had only four or five months to go.
3.
The BLD confirmed that in some instances the claim period for compensation can be extended at the Governor's discretion. This can be done if the claimant has not been offered compensation for his land in writing or if he has not been served with a notice. The BLD decided that this did not apply to Mr Lau as notification of the compensation award was given in 1974. We are instructed and we have stated above that neither Mr Lau nor his brother were given notification of the compensation award being made in 1974. Again, this is clearly borne out by the fact that as soon as Mr Lau became aware of the compulsory purchase in 1979 he took the steps as indicated above to seek compensation. In the circumstances we would ask that the BLD be put to strict proof as to whom notification of the compensation award was given. Failing which the BLD should be asked to re-consider its decision and exercise its discretion for the claim period to be extended to consider Mr Lau's compensation claim.
The BLD also confirms that in some circumstances the BLD is prepared to consider late payments to pre-1982 cases. The BLD considered the
Continued../4
x
Х