an
securing re-imbursement I could not say: this depends upon the provisions of the local law dealing with disposal of wrecks and as the law in this matter differs substantially, as between one harbour authority and another even in this country, I should like to venture an opinion on the position in Hong Kong. Presumably the Colonial Office can advise. Assuming however that the Hong Kong Government has the requisite powers and decides to sell the wrecks then the proceeds, less expenses incurred on realising these (which would include the expenses of maintaining watchmen because without these the wrecks would presumably not have been saleable by this time) would become the property of Underwriters should they eventually agree to settle claims under the vessels' war risks insurances.
As to whether the adoption of the course proposed, if adopted, would be likely to prejudice similar claims of ours against the Soviet Government I should say on the whole that the answer is 'No'. in the first place I do not know of any cases of British vessels lost in Soviet territorial waters which offer a prospect of salvage and if we have not heard of any so far it seems unlikely that we shall now. Secondly, if such a case arose I should regard it as unlikely that we should secure permission to operate on the wreck, and in any case we should probably be very unwise to seek to exercise salvage rights because by doing so we should only be inviting Counter claims in respect of expenses caused to the Russians by reason of the existence of the wrecks. I think it could safely be assumed that it would pay us better to leave the Russians to re-imburse themselves for such things as costs of lighting and buoying and wreck removal expenses out of anything to be got out of the wrecks.
We have heard no more so far of the Russian attempts to sell the wrecks as they lie.
I am sending a copy of this letter to Scarlett at the C. 0.
Yours sincerely,
03 V 30 fisga) D. HAIGH.
30
.0.0
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.