TNAG-0785-FCO40-989-Study-of-labour-relations-in-Hong-Kong-by-Professor-H-A-Turn-1978 — Page 127

CODE 18-77

SS 10/76

Mr Stagg

Hong Kong and General Dept

HKK 212/1

RECEIVED IN REGISTEN 54K 212/548/1

18 MAY 1978

DESK OPNGIM INDEX

M

REGISTRY

Action Taken

RS 1914 ORE

1. It would not be possible for the Treasury Solicitor to institute proceedings against Mr Handy if they did not know where he was to be found. One would not expect his bank to reveal his whereabouts nor to accept service of proceedings on his behalf.

4

2. On the facts of the case, so far as I can see Mr Handy was authorised to make one change of plan- folio 137A at Flag G, i.e. instead of arriving in Hong Kong on 29 July folio 136 at Flag F, which would have enabled him to carry out the programme as originally agreed - para. 3(a) of folio 88A at Flag F - he was to arrive on 7 August.

3. He failed to do this however and apparently then proposed to arrive on 12 August - folio 138 at Flag H. This was not acceptable to Professor Turner, who told him that it was now (? 8 August) useless for him to proceed.

4. We queried this folio 140 at Flag I but Professor Turner on 10 August re-affirmed that there was no point in his going folio 142 at Flag J. Mr Handy was so informed the same day and told he would be expected to repay the moneys that had been paid to him- Mr Duffy's note at Flag K and folio 143.

5. I think the FCO must be regarded as having taken the responsibility of terminating the appointment on 10 August, on the grounds that Mr Handy had not complied with the requirement to spend two months in Hong Kong beginning on 1 August, as varied by the agreement that he should reach Hong Kong on 7 August.

6. In the event of legal proceedings, the Crown would have to argue that, in all the circumstances, termination was justified, while Mr Handy might argue that, in view of his willingness to arrive in Hong Kong on 12 August, it was not.

7. The moneys paid to Mr Handy, totalling £1,520 were not apparently made up as in para. 4 of folio 88A - Flag A, but consisted I believe of £720 for airfares and £800 as half the honorarium.

8.

Mr Handy had I presume bought his ticket for £720.

If by 10 August he could have cancelled the ticket and obtained a refund, he should have done so. Given that he was booked on 12 August, which one might have expected, there might still have been time for him to obtain a full refund. If so it seems to me that the Crown has a valid claim for full recovery of £720. If Mr Handy had booked for 12 August and by 10 August it was genuinely too late to obtain a refund, then he might argue that he was under no obligation to repay, on the ground that it was not his fault that he did not travel on 12 August.

9.

As to the £800, if it was reasonable for the Crown to cancel the appointment as it did, the Crown would have a valid claim for repayment. If Mr Handy contended that the cancellation was unreasonable, he would presumably claim to be entitled to the whole honorarium, and so resist the Crown's claim.

/10.