CO129-610-5 Marriages solemnized in Stanley Camp during the Japanese occupation and subsequent legislation for divorce 14-2-1947 - 27-6-1947 — Page 45

CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案 All AI Reviewed
Series Prev Next

.3 civs 2

loƆ srit 101 9

spać adi mOTA

smevod odi gaineteinbA 10 sdt 67

916€

C

.344

•anivse Epc

amendment of the Act and would be void as repugnant to the Act under the Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865.

(b) Even if it could be maintained that the Court was properly constituted and capable of lawfully exercising jurisdiction, the question might arise as to whether the provision of the Hong Kong (Non-Domiciled Parties) Divorce Rules, 1936, made under the Act of 1926 were, or could be, complied with - e.g. Rules 3, 4, 20 and 25. Any Hong Kong Ordinance repugnant to the Rules would likewise be ultra vires.

f. a. (16)

SECRET.

Edit History

2026-06-18 23:29:54 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct
Live
View comparison
AI Proofread
.3 civs 2 loƆ srit 101 9 spać adi mOTA smevod odi gaineteinbA 10 sdt 67 916€ C .344 •anivse Epc amendment of the Act and would be void as repugnant to the Act under the Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865. (b) Even if it could be maintained that the Court was properly constituted and capable of lawfully exercising jurisdiction, the question might arise as to whether the provision of the Hong Kong (Non-Domiciled Parties) Divorce Rules, 1936, made under the Act of 1926 were, or could be, complied with - e.g. Rules 3, 4, 20 and 25. Any Hong Kong Ordinance repugnant to the Rules would likewise be ultra vires. f. a. (16) SECRET.
Baseline (Original)
.3 civs 2 loƆ srit 101 9 spać adi mOTA smevod odi gaineteinbA 10 sdt 67 916€ C .344 •anivse Epc amendment of the Act and would be void as repugnant to the Act under the Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865. (b) Even if it could be maintained that the Court was properly constituted and capable of lawfully exercising jurisdiction, the question might arise as to whether the provision of the Hong Kong (Non-Domiciled Parties) Divorce Rules, 1936, made under the Act of 1926 were, or could be, complied with - e.g. Rules 3, 4, 20 and 25. Any Hong Kong Ordinance repugnant to the Rules would likewise be ultra vires. f. a. (16) SECER.
2026-06-18 23:29:54 · Baseline
View content

.3 civs 2

loƆ srit 101 9

spać adi mOTA

smevod odi gaineteinbA 10 sdt 67

916€

C

.344

•anivse Epc

amendment of the Act and would be void as repugnant to the Act under the Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865.

(b) Even if it could be maintained that the Court was properly constituted and capable of lawfully exercising jurisdiction, the question might arise as to whether the provision of the Hong

Kong (Non-Domiciled Parties) Divorce Rules, 1936, made under the Act of 1926 were, or could be, complied with - e.g. Rules 3, 4, 20 and 25. Any Hong Kong Ordinance repugnant to the Rules would likewise

be ultra vires.

f. a. (16)

SECER.

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.