Baileys Shaw & Gillett
Mark Lennox-Boyd MP/5
3 October 1991
We
it is the Hong Kong government that seems to suggest that until 1983 it was unable to identify the person to whom the compensation should be made. This is obviously untrue as there are letters from Mr Lau's solicitors (enclosure 1(iv) above) to show that the District Office had been notified of some interest in the compensation monies in 1979.
consider it vitally important that the Hong Kong government be put to strict proof that they did in fact serve a notice of the compensation award or that they had made an offer of compensation in writing, failing which it should be persuaded that there is considerable scope for the Hong Kong government to exercise its discretion either by extending the claim period for compensation due to the fact that Mr Lau has not been offered compensation for his father's land in writing and/or he has not been served with a notice under Section 17 of the Crown Lands Resumption Act 1988, and/or that there are special circumstances in Mr Lau's case as indicated above that merit exception and a late payment should be made to this pre-1982 case.
We consider it inequitable of the Hong compensation of
Kong government to withhold £300,000 in this particular case and we would ask you exert sufficient pressure to bring about not only a re-assessment but an equitable and just conclusion to this
that
behalf of Mr Lau.
Yours faithfully
Baileys Sheel
Shall I Gi
I Gilles
BAILEYS SHAW & GILLETT
case on
What is
HKGS
Vesponse?