CO129-610-5 Marriages solemnized in Stanley Camp during the Japanese occupation and subsequent legislation for divorce 14-2-1947 - 27-6-1947 — Page 47

CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案 All AI Reviewed

Court, lawfully exercising jurisdiction.

A Hong Kong Ordinance purporting to validate the divorce would in effect/amount to an amendment of the Act and would therefore be void as repugnant to the Act under the Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865.

(b) Even if it could be maintained that the Court was properly constituted and capable of lawfully exercising jurisdiction, the question might arise as to whether the provisions of the Hong Kong (Non-Domiciled Parties) Divorce Rules, 1936, made under the Act of 1926 were, or could be, complied with - e.g. Rules 3, 4, 20 and 25. Any Hong Kong Ordinance repugnant to the Rules would likewise be ultra vires.

Edit History

2026-06-18 23:30:04 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

Court, lawfully exercising jurisdiction. A Hong Kong Ordinance purporting to validate the divorce would in effect/amount to an amendment of the Act and would therefore be void as repugnant to the Act under the Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865. (b) Even if it could be maintained that the Court was properly constituted and capable of lawfully exercising jurisdiction, the question might arise as to whether the provisions of the Hong Kong (Non-Domiciled Parties) Divorce Rules, 1936, made under the Act of 1926 were, or could be, complied with - e.g. Rules 3, 4, 20 and 25. Any Hong Kong Ordinance repugnant to the Rules would likewise be ultra vires.

Baseline (Original)

Court, lawfully exercising jurisdiction. A Hong Kong Ordinance purporting to validate eff the divorce would in effect/amount to an amendment 46 woda popoln enack itt a ceno pronounced otherwis under the Act otherwis of the Act and would therefore be void as repugnant to the thian & such a Act under the Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865. (b) Even if it could be maintained that the Court was properly constituted and, capable of lawfully might exercising jurisdiction, the question dy arise as to whether the provisions of the Hong Kong (Non-Domiciled Parties) Divorce Rules, 1936, made under the Act of 1926 were, or could be, complied with - e.. Rules 3, 4, 20 and 25. Any Hong Kong Ordinance repugnant to the Rules would likewise be ultra vires. I cont shall h deemed h valid, as I wondd Настран SEVER.

2026-06-18 23:30:04 · Baseline

View content

Court, lawfully exercising jurisdiction.

A Hong Kong Ordinance purporting to validate

eff

the divorce would in effect/amount to an amendment

woda popoln

enack itt a ceno pronounced otherwis

under the Act otherwis

of the Act and would therefore be void as repugnant to the thian & such a

Act under the Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865.

(b) Even if it could be maintained that the

Court was properly constituted and, capable of lawfully

might exercising jurisdiction, the question dy arise

as to whether the provisions of the Hong Kong

(Non-Domiciled Parties) Divorce Rules, 1936, made under

the Act of 1926 were, or could be, complied with -

e.. Rules 3, 4, 20 and 25. Any Hong Kong Ordinance

repugnant to the Rules would likewise be ultra vires.

I cont shall h deemed h

valid, as I

wondd

Настран

SEVER.

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.