not intended to cover the risks of
invasion (in this connection please see my Savingram No. 854 & 5th "September 1945
on the question of possible revision of Defence
Regulations); nevertheless, it is possible
that some of these risks were, in fact,
covered.
(iii) The practical difficulty of proving such
claims in Court will be considerable, and
may often be insuperable; nevertheless, there
may be cases in which legal liability can be
established under the Defence (Compensation)
Regulations. Cases where a claimant is able,
ક્
inspite of practical difficulties, to prove
legal liability against Government must be con-
sidered as the exception rather than the rule,
which would place the claimant in an excep-
tionally favourable position in relation to
other persons who have suffered war damage to
their property, a favourable position which
cannot be justified on any grounds of fairness;
(iv) Whet legal liability against Government can
3.
be proved, the liability must be met by the
local Government.
39
8/14288/5/49
The difficulties which would arise if any other basis
than that set out in paragraph 2 above were taken can perhaps
be judged by reference to the end of section 4 of Mr. Allen's
report.
4. On the above grounds, the basis on which this problem
should be dealt with in Hong Kong appears to be as follows:
(behind (88) on
1948 file)
(i) As, in accordance
redormondation in
your despatch No
there was no War Risks Insurance in Hong Kong,
claimants had no insurance cover unless they were
covered under the U.K. War Risks Insurance Scheme.
(ii) As, in accordance with the recommendation in your
despatch No. 281 of 29th November, 1947, there is
/ no general
(2) on 55178/21A/47
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.