T
10 MAN1933
113
Hongkong Government Foreshore & Sea Bed Works Draft Bill
Extract from the Minutes of a Meeting of the General Committee
of the Hongkong General Chamber of Commerce held on 18th January,
1933.
MARINE RIGHTS
FORESHORE & SEA BED WORKS DRAFT BILL
question.
The Chairman summarised recent proceedings on this
The Hon. Sir William Shenton said he was quite sure the Government would have no objection to his telling the Committee the present position in this matter. The Bill had been radically altered. It was proposed to pass the Bill, but on every propo- sition put forward by the Government an advertisement would appear in the Gazette for three months and anyone whose interests were infringed would be entitled to appear before the Governor -in- Council and object in toto. Assuming any one opposed, a further three months would be allowed to fight the question of compensa- tion. This would give time for firms, where necessary, to com- municate with their London Offices. The question of compensation would be argued before the Courts and not before any Government appointed body.
Under the Bill as at first drafted, owners had no right to object once a scheme was approved; they only had a right to compensation. Now, owners had a right to oppose the scheme in
toto.
The Hon. Mr.
Paterson thought owners ought to have a right of appeal Home. Many decisions of the local Courts had been reversed on appeal. The present attitude of the Hongkong Government towards land was such that he did not think owners would get justice. He did not suggest, malafides on the part of the Government: they simply did not understand the question of
land values.
The Hon. Sir William Shenton said that the right of appeal to the Secretary of State exists quite independently of the Ordinance, and therefore it appeared unnecessary to put such a provision into the Bill. The point could be raised in the Legislative Council by a member of the Chamber and the statement that the appeal exists as a right would then appear on the Minutes. On every question every citizen of Hongkong had a right to appeal to the Secretary of State.
The Hon. Mr. Paterson was of opinion that an appeal to the Secretary of State was not enough: the appeal required was to the Privy Council.
The Hon. Sir William Shenton said that the Privy Council would only go into questions of law, not fact.
The Hon. Mr. Paterson said it was well known that, in the opinion of barristers and solicitors, the law was badly administered in Hongkong.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.