126/6/50
BUNG KONG
15
sir,
COLOMIAL OʻTICE,
THE CHARCH HOUSE
ly
GREAT SITH ST. RL,
9.0.1.
March, 1950,
35
I have the honour to refer to your despatch No. 31 of the 12th August, 1948, on the subject of claims in respect of vessels lost or damaged owing to their having been used for various purțoses in 1941 in connection with the defence of Hong Kong, and to express regret at the delay in replying thereto. I now take the opportunity of enclosing a copy of a despatch to the Federation of walaya dated 10th May, 1949, together with a copy of the legal opinion to which reference is made in the despatch, on the sowwhat similar problem in Balayɛ.
2.
I consider that the same lines should be followed in dealing with this problem in Hong Hong as I have suggested in the enclosed despatch should be followed in Malaya. Briefly those lines are:-
3
(1) Except wh
a case may be covered by Par Maks Insurance, “denial" claims, on grounds of fairness, should be dealt with on the same basis as claim in regect of general war danɔe.
(ii) It is thought that no legal liability exists against Covernant
except in cases where it can be established under the Local refence (Compensation) Regulations. These Regulations were not intended cover the risks of invasion (in this connection please see my savingram No. 854 of 5th September, 139 on the question of possible revision of Defence Regulations); nevertheless, it is possible that some of theme rásico vere, in fact, covered.
(1.1) The practical difficulty of proving much claims in court will be
amsiderable, and may often be insuperable; nevertheless, there may be cases in which legal liability ca: be established under the Defence (Compensation) Regulations, Cames where a claimant is able in spite of practical difficulties, to prove legal liability against Coverment must be considered as the exception rather the rule, which would place the claimant in an exceptionally favourable position in relation to other persons who have suffered war damage to their property, a favourable position which cannot be justified on any grouxia of fairness;
(iv) whore legal liability against Goverment can be proved, the
liability must be met by the lookl Covernment.
The difficulties which would arise if any other basis than that out in paragraph 2 above were taken can perhaps be judged by reference to the end of section 4 of 1r. Allen's report.
200
On the above grounds, the basis on which this problem should be dealt with in Hong Kong speare to be as follows;-
(1) am there was no var Risks Insurance in Hong song, claimants had
no insur nos cover unless they were covered under the United ⠀ingdom Bar Nisks Insurance Scheme,
(ii) As, in accordanos with the recommendation in your despatch No.281
of 29th November, 1947, there is no general ex ratia far Damage Compensation obese in Hong Kong, no special ex gratia compensation can be paid in the case of the claims now under consideration in respect of vessels whether "denial", used as block ships, or sunk by enemy action or otherwise lost or damaged. I feel sure you will agree that to adopt any other couras, 1.0. deliberately
/to
SIR ALLAA