58
Х
In margine not against end para.)
to the value of the vessel immediately before the
me
occurance
In
ance of the damage that caused the loss.
the case of vehicles and aircraft there is the
proviso that no compensation would be payable
unless it could be shown that at the time when the
loss or damage occurred, the risk to the vehicle
or aircraft arising in consequence of war
operations was materially increased by reason of
the requisition. It is not clear why vessels are
not mentioned in this proviso and one can only
assume that this proviso does not cover vessels
and that therefore compensation of value of the
vessels would be payable in any case of a loss
whilst under requisition irrespective of the
cause of the loss. In the last sentence of
paragraph 3 (a) of Allen's report, he says that
the legal liabilities of Hong Kong Government in
these cases has been admitted by the Hong Kong
Attorney-General and is not open to doubt. I
assume paragraph 3 (b) of the report refers to
cases where there was no formal requisitioning.
theeling 4. The initial liability in making any
Igre not already been) legally proved claims which are not met by the
be conses thaky Lane) United Kingdom/Departments as being outside the
scope of claims normally accepted by them, must
presumably rest on the Hong Kong Government, but that raises the question of the extent to which
the United Kingdom Service Department should
morally be asked to contribute towards the
expenditure involved. Allen in his report
V.K
The
paragraph 5 (e) suggests as a basis that/Hong Kong Government should bear 35% and the Service
Departments 65%. tment
imagine
The Service Departments however
against
would, cabally, be adverse to making contributions
on that basis.
Nevertheless if we take the
maximum amount of the claims as $25 million
/see
Page 60Page 61