44
(ii) Five river ships were requisitioned for scuttling by the Navy to block the entrance to Aberdeen, a small port on the West side of the Island, much frequented by fishing craft. There is a small Dockyard there, which was requisitioned by the Navy early in the war, and it was intended to deny its use to the Japanese. Of these, four were duly scuttled at Aberdeen, but the fifth on the day following her requisition was turned over to the Navy for use as an accommodation ship in connection with the Boom Defence. While being got ready by the Navy for this purpose it was sunk by enemy action.
With the exception
-
of the last vessel, which could be held to be exclusively a Naval responsibility, the purpose of the other sinkings, whether performed by the Harbour Department or the Navy, was clearly the successful prosecution on a combined basis of the Defence of Hong Kong. Even the circumstances of the one exception are ambiguous, because the Naval personnel to be accommodated in this ship were in fact part of the Hong Kong R.N.V.R., the costs of which have reluctantly been accepted by the Hong Kong Government as their responsibility.
(e)
In all the circumstances, I do not consider that it is logical or feasible to attempt the allocation of responsibility for particular cases of requisitioning under the Defence Plan between the Services and the Hong Kong Government are the basis of the use to which vessels were put and I think that the only rational solution is to assess in the light of Hong Kong's contributions to Imperial Defence the amount of the Colony's obligations, whether high or low, for the consequences of carying out the Defence Plan and to apply that percentage, to the total cost of settling all outstanding legal liabilities for requisitioning ships under it, allowance being made for the few claims already settled by the Navy. If any similar liabilities exist in regard to denial action, the same principle would apply. To make this assessment is a task involving factors outside my knowledge but after hearing many arguments in Hong Kong regarding the relative local interests of the Hong Kong Government and the Services in the defence of Hong Kong Government and the Services in the defence of Hong Kong at the end of 1941, I should be prepared to suggest as a basis for discussion without any form of commitment, that a division of liabilities as follows would accord with local circumstances:
Hong Kong Government
35%
Navy
35%
Army
25%
Air Force
•5%
LEGAL BASIS OF CLAIMS.
6.
The Emergency Legislation of Hong Kong provides a legal basis for the assessment of claims over requisitioned ships, but as the details of its application to the circumstances of December, 1941 are not straight forward some explanation is required. The relevant excerpts are set out in Schedule II,
(a) The principles to be applied in the case of a ship requisitioned under the Hong Kong Defecne Regulations are set out in outline in the Compensation (Defence) Regulations 1940. The owner is to receive (i) a bareboat hire, accruing daily, on the basis of what the owner might reasonably expect to receive under a charter of contract of hiring (Regulation 6(1)(a)), including repairs to damage (Regulation 6(1)(c)), (ii) reasonable expenses for running or maintaining the
craft, if run or maintained by the owner during requisition. (Regulation 6(1Xb)), or for complying with any directions given by or on behalf of the Governor (Regulation 6(1)(e)), (iii), in the event of Total Loss, including Constructive Total Loss, "a sum equal to the value of the vessel immediately before the occurence of the damage which caused the loss", (Regulations 6(1)(a) and 6(6)).
(b) As regards bareboat hire (Regulation 6(1)(a)), it is specifically provided in Regulation 6(1)(i) of the Regulations as printed that no account shall be taken of any appreciation in value due to the emergency i.e. after 24th August, 1939, the date of the first promulgation of Defence Regulations, but this proviso does not apply to the value of the vessel in the event of total loss, (a) (iii) above. It is not clear why value is referred to in this context, except in so far as it may be taken into account in computing a rate of hire, as Regulation 6(1)(a) makes it quite clear that the charterer is to bear the insurance and that the insurance value is to be computed in accordance with 6(1)(a). It occurs to me that there may bé a corruption in Regulation 6(1)(i), as it would surely be more logical if this referred to the total loss
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.