CO129-622-6 Claims of War Supplies to Eastern Group Supply Council 21-1-1949 - 23-12-1949 — Page 59

which I accepted in my telegram No. 456 of the 16th April, 1948. - In the circumstances I fear that I am unable to agree that any part of the loss should fall on His Majesty's Government, and in view of your recomendation as regards War Damage - Compensation there appears to be no alternative but for the 1000 ́ to be borne by the claimants themselves. In your despatch No.15 of the 28th January, 1948, paragraph 6, you accepted the suggestion that these clains should be rejected, on the under- standing that settlement of Category "C" claims should be vade on the basis of 25% of the amount involved, as mentioned in paragraph 5 of my despatch No. 400 of 1947. (I recur to this point below).

In your despatch No. 227 of the 30th September, 1947, you referred to Category "B" and "O" claims against the Covernment of India, the R.A.F. Singapore and DADUS Hong Kong. The category "B" element in the claim against the Government of India amounts to %.2,896,301 (£181,019) and that against the R.A.F. Singapore to %.45,320 (£2,833). No details of the claim against DAD03, Hong Kong, are specified and it is therefore not clear whether this is a Category "p" claim or a Category "0" claim or partakes of both categories. In view of my comment above about Category "3" claims you will appreciate that I should not feel justified in further pressing any of these Category "a" claime.

4. In paragraph 5 of my despatch No. 400 of the 24th December, 1947, I referred to the claims (Category "C") rolating to advances made by local European firms to Chinese contractors to assist the latter in purchasing materials for manufacturo. (The amount of these claims in respect of orders placed on behalf of the Eastern Group Supply Council is shown in your despatch Eo. 15 of the 28th January, 1948, to be 8.601,020 (£37,564).). I said that I was inclined to the view that theag claims should be met up to 25% of the amount involved. I very mach regret, however, to inform you that the Ministry of supply are unable to agree to any payment whatevər on account of this particular category of claims. I have accordingly given this matter further careful consideration to see whether, and if so to what extent, I should feel justified in further pressing the Ministry of Supply to make some payment, but for the reasons given below I consider that I should not be justified in so proceeding.

I am advised that no legal claim lies against either the Government of Hong Kong or His Majesty's Government in respect of this particular category of claime, nor indeed has it been suggested that any legal claim exists.

It is possible that had there been some form of war riska goods insurance scheme in Hong Kong prior to the Japanese occupation, or had a war damge compensation scheme been set up in Hong Kong, the claimante in question might now be able to effect some recovery from the Chinese contractors, as the latter might in turn have been entitled to some payment under ne or other of the above schemes. I see considerable danger in any case in making paymente ex gratia, where no legal liablity existe, for what is in effect war damage; and to cake such payments in the case of a particular category of claimants right vary well have awkward repercussions in Hong 14g whore there were many claims amounting to a very large sur in total in respect of verious losses and damage arising out of the war which tive Boyertment of Hong Kong themselves have acided should not be cæt on to limited extent under ary war jerage compensation scheme.

Whilst

558