8
Sir Sidney Abrahams.
This has been discussed with Mr. Sidebotham. He considers that legal advice must be taken before we commit ourselves to a definite view regarding "Category B and C claims".
I do not think you need be bothered at this stage with any but the claims dealt with in paragraph 2 B and C of Mr. Palmer's minute of 7/2. For Hong Kong's statement of the case see Hong Kong despatch No. 163 of 1947 at (12) on 16895/17/46-47; for further background see Mr.Whyatt's letter to Mr. J. 5. Williams at (9) on the same file. The first Colonial Office view regarding the "category B and C claims"
is in paragraphs 4 and 5 of (16) on the same file. Hong Kong's reply is in paragraphs 3 and 6 of (1) on 13695/17/48.
The question is whether legally or in
quity any claim lies against ..G. or the Hong
Kong Government in respect of the losses referred to
in (12) on 18095/17/46-47 (referred to for
convenience in the minuting and also in some despatches by the term used by Mr.Whyatt in first bringing
the to notice in (9) on 16095/17/46-47, viz.: "category B and C claims".)
Would you please mark the file to Mr.Palmer with your advice in order that he may see it before we put up to Mr. Sidebotham again?
J.meen
9.3.49.
There is no
beal claim against
against sittan
seen
1573
in fovernment
Dept in respect of either category. You have Iron any such claim pot forward by the claimants in any of the files. Presumably has time baan
attention would have been drawn to it.
A claim in equity by
raz
equity by which is presumably meant
restural justice is a matter of
The Boug Koup foot accepted
Lifficulty.
view that a 20 per cant
faquast should be made in rempest of Category C, Thowever
C.
the humstay of Liffly stools that had there been a proper curseura
resurance schame the European marahanto would have bean covered. Law rest prepared to differ from to Palmer as requals the reply to have til stole