necessary to make the position clear.
The case differs from those in 44885 in that (1) the financing Bank is a German Bank (2) the property in the goods has evidently not yet passed to Meyerink & Co. Hong Kong. The position therefore is that the liquidated firm in Hong Kong has not paid anything for the goods and stands to lose nothing if they are not delivered, although it may make something if they are, while the only person that will profit will be the enemy Bank, or if the assets of its London branch show a deficit, the creditors of that branch. Moreover, this being the case of enemy goods (on the assumption, that is, that the shippers were enemies) the Bank (even if we are to assume that it is entitled to be treated as a British bank) ought to have obtained the Board of Trade License before dealing with the goods. In these circumstances I feel rather disinclined to help the bank as the liquidator appears to have behaved without very much discretion in the matter. Perhaps as a preliminary step we might? send a copy of the letter to the Treasury asking whether they wish us to assist the Dresher Bank in the matter. I submit a draft explaining the position to them. A copy of the correspondence should also go to the Board of Trade with reference to 44885. L.F. for observations.
06.4/4/05
✓ Cattin
C.O
47299 or of
[RFGE 18 OCT 15,
15 X 15
488
THE PARLIAMENTARY COUNSEL,
WHITEHALL,
S.W.
Views
Can
Law.
abs fla
ав
My deny thi
about
this and
you
1 Fan
иль
would know all
Rapt
Wang Kay
not in blin! I lee told Fass that I rem
laning it
it me
Ju
Wit Malka
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.