CO129-622-6 Claims of War Supplies to Eastern Group Supply Council 21-1-1949 - 23-12-1949 — Page 8

8

Sir Sidney Abrahams.

This has been discussed with Mr. Sidebotham. He considers that legal advice must be taken before we commit ourselves to a definite view regarding "Category B and C claims".

I do not think you need be bothered at this stage with any but the claims dealt with in paragraph 2 B and C of Mr. Palmer's minute of 7/2. For Hong Kong's statement of the case see Hong Kong despatch No. 163 of 1947 at (12) on 16895/17/46-47; for further background see Mr.Whyatt's letter to Mr. J. 5. Williams at (9) on the same file. The first Colonial Office view regarding the "category B and C claims"

is in paragraphs 4 and 5 of (16) on the same file. Hong Kong's reply is in paragraphs 3 and 6 of (1) on 13695/17/48.

The question is whether legally or in

quity any claim lies against ..G. or the Hong

Kong Government in respect of the losses referred to

in (12) on 18095/17/46-47 (referred to for

convenience in the minuting and also in some despatches by the term used by Mr.Whyatt in first bringing

the to notice in (9) on 16095/17/46-47, viz.: "category B and C claims".)

Would you please mark the file to Mr.Palmer with your advice in order that he may see it before we put up to Mr. Sidebotham again?

J.meen

9.3.49.

There is no

beal claim against

against sittan

seen

1573

in fovernment

Dept in respect of either category. You have Iron any such claim pot forward by the claimants in any of the files. Presumably has time baan

attention would have been drawn to it.

A claim in equity by

raz

equity by which is presumably meant

restural justice is a matter of

The Boug Koup foot accepted

Lifficulty.

view that a 20 per cant

faquast should be made in rempest of Category C, Thowever

C.

the humstay of Liffly stools that had there been a proper curseura

resurance schame the European marahanto would have bean covered. Law rest prepared to differ from to Palmer as requals the reply to have til stole