54126/6/48
139
Your Telegram No.437.
The enclosures to my avingram No.70 of 26th August, 17, indicated that in the case of Burma it was assumed by
the Burma. Office that
(1) whilst Civil Goverment was in control in
denial measures would have been carried out either under
powers conferred by Defence Rules and claims could be
dealt with accordingly
(11) other denial measures would give rise to a claim for
damges.
is kajesty's Government did not therefore receive any advice
on this aspect of the problem. The advice received was in
respect of denial measures carried out after Oivil Government
had ceased to function in area concerned.
In view of the
complete collapse of Civil Government in Hong Kong on 25th December, 1941, the advice received by H.M.G. was not directly applicable to the situation in Hong Kong up to 25th December, 1941, but in view of that advice. it appears that the legal liability in cases of denial carried out prior to the Civil Government ceasing to function is even more clearly established
subject to any comments you may have in the light of circumstances in Hong Kong in which denial measures were carried out and the Local Defence Regulations. Un re-reading my telegrams Nos. 498 and 499 I do not see how you have received the impression that legal liability would only arise where requisition of the property was effected first, although such requisition might well according to the powers and conditions governing the requisitioning give rise to a clearer legal liability.
2. The question is one of great complexity and in view of the sise of the problem over the whole of the Colonial Empire
H.M.G. would be quite unable in its present circumstances to accept liability to meet all denial claims from U.k. funds.
Apart therefore from the cases referred to below where the
Services/
Page 140Page 141