21
3.
others were sunk without formal requisitioning. Here again insofar as formal requisitioning took place there is legal liability to the extent laid down in the compensation defence regulations.
As regards vessels which were not requisitioned before they were sunk the position is very clearly set out in paras. 2(e) and 3(b). Whether or not there is a legal liability in such cases has never yet been finally determined but until the matter is finally settled, possibly by reference to the Courts, we must proceed on the basis that no legal liability exists. In that case, although one sympathises to some extent with the owners of the vessels, they are to some extent in the same position as the owner of any property situated on land which may have been damaged or destroyed as a result of the war. The Hong Kong Government has decided on their own initiative that there shall be no war damage compensation scheme and therefore in the case of claimants who have no legal claim against Government there is nothing more to be said for the moment. In this connection para.10(b) of the report is of interest as it confirms the situation in Hong Kong which the War Damage Claims Commissioner mentioned, namely, that in view of the extraordinary prosperity, little interest is shown as regards claims for damage occurring during the war.
Aly
4. We can only, of course, consider claims where a legal liability is established. To go beyond that would be to enter into the realm of a general war damage compensation scheme which Hong Kong has rejected. If then we confine ourselves to legal claims, and the exact extent of these probably still remain to be determined, the question arises whether there is any case for asking the Service Departments to contribute towards the expenditure involved in payment of the claims. The porch argument for asking the Service Departments to contribute towards the expenditure involved in payment of the claims. The moral argument for asking the Service Departments to contribute is very well set out in para.4(b) of the report. It is difficult, however, to decide what weight to give to each of the various factors referred to in that paragraph. The Hong Kong Government can argue that the denial measures were not carried out for the benefit of the Colony, but were carried out as part of a general scheme of defence in the Far East in the hopes that by denying the use of the vessels to the enemy in Hong Kong, this would assist in the general defence of the Empire. Whilst this may be true to some extent, it does not help forward the matter very much unless it were admitted that the war was fought entirely for the benefit of the United Kingdom. Also one would have to take into account the respective financial positions of Hong Kong and of the United Kingdom following the war. The United Kingdom Government has had to bear the burden of prosecuting the war to a successful conclusion whereas owing to the fact that Hong Kong was occupied by the enemy, it did not have to incur any expenditure in the actual prosecution of the war subsequent to the 8th December, 1941. The result is that not only is the United Kingdom Government burdened with debts incurred: to meet war-time expenditure, but in addition it has to
bear/
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.