Baileys Shaw & Gillett
Mark Lennox-Boyd MP/4
3 October 1991
circumstances of Mr Lau's case and decided that his case did not merit exception on the basis that no special circumstances existed which would justify the delays in the Mr Lau's attempts to obtain compensation. An example given was that Mr Lau had failed to produce Letters of Administration for his father's land until 1983. Even then Mr Lau had ample opportunity to pursue his claim but did not do SO until December 1987.
We
would challenge this on the basis that Mr Lau was unable to produce Letters of Administration due entirely to the obstruction of his older brother since the death of his father until 1983. On the production of Letters of Administration in 1983 his older brother died and, as can be seen,
the Letters of Administration were amended and recorded on 24th April 1986. Our client in fact finally got evidence of property ownership in Hong Kong
Kong on or around 10th October 1988. Between 1979 and 1988 our client has, firstly through the offices of his solicitors Johnson Stokes & Masters and secondly Mr Gary Mark, tried to obtain the compensation money for lot number 1487B but with no Finally, in 1988 through sheer frustration our client to Hong Kong and went to the District Office in person, where informed that the officials who had originally dealt with the had left and that there was no help the present officials could In the circumstances our client put the matter into the hands an investment company (Commandary Investment Limited). The purpose of such an agreement was to enable the company to pursue the matter of compensation on his behalf within a period of two years. It is again clear from the correspondence enclosed with Mr Staunton's letter the two years expired in or around October 1990 with nothing being done by the company to pursue our client's claim for compensation.
success. returned he was
matter give.
of
that
We consider in view of the above that from April 1979 until October 1990 Mr Lau took all steps
steps necessary to make
make his
his claim for compensation. There is evidence to suggest, as the enclosures show, that he procured services of various solicitors to make representations on his behalf to the District Office in connection with the compensation. We are aware that there was considerable delay in the production of the Letters of Administration. However, it should be borne in mind that it was not until April 1979 that Mr Lau was aware of the compulsory purchase and between 1973 and 1979 at least his main concern was to sort out his father's legal estate and to deal with an older brother who was proving extremely difficult and who resided in Hong Kong. Since 1979 to date it cannot be said that Mr Lau did not use all opportunities available to him to pursue his claim and we consider that he has been unfortunate in the fact that he was not advised at the time of initially making the claim in 1979 that there was a limitation period of five years either by his solicitors at the time or the District Office. It should be further borne in mind that
Continued../5
relevant
I appe арке
SB.