The
claimants,if they are in any doubt as to the legal aspect of their claim, to forego pursuing it on a legal basis. However, as the decision to have no War Damage Compensation scheme was taken on/recommen- dation of the Hong Kong Government, we and the Hong Kong Government, must face up to the difficulty and be prepared to accept any repercussions.
The re
is one exception to this position, as I understand that if a ship were insured under the United Kingdom Marine War Risks insurance scheme, 'denial' is a
risk, covered by that scheme, and the Ministry of Transport would admit payment of compensation in full in such a case from the Marine War Risks Insurance
fund.
3. Apart from that particular category, where presumably no difficulty arises, the position appears
to be as follows:-
(a) Where denial took place without prior requisitioning, the attitude of the Service Departments.
HMG
is set out in War Office letter of the 16th of
September 1943.
Stirred the mir
titi
тук.
2
(4)
In our despatch of the 30th of May
(3)
"Kotha Federdin Adaya 1949,7paragraph 2, it was stated that in all
probability no claim would lie at law in such a case
apart from any claim under the local Defence Regulations.
Whether in fact the claim came under the Defence
Regulations however depended on several factors and in any event the claimant might find great difficulty in proving that in fact his claim came within the scope of those Regulations. If however he were able to prove it,
locat presumably the claim must be met by the Government, of
火 Hong Kong.
a
57
(which in this case would be the gut.)
(b) Denial which was carried out after the vessels
had been formally requisitioned on behalf of the United Kingdom Government Departments; and vessels which had been requisitioned for use as block ships and subsequently damaged or lost. The Compensation) Defence Regulations 1940 regulation 6 (1) (a) provides for compensation equal
Defence
/to
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.