TNAG-2319-FCO40-3363-Petitions-from-members-of-the-public-regarding-Hong-Kong-1991 — Page 50

Baileys Shaw & Gillett

Mark Lennox-Boyd MP/2

3 October 1991

2.

(v) Letters of Administration

(vi) An agreement between Commandary Investment Limited and our

client.

Your response to Mr Staunton dated 29th April 1991

The decision of the Buildings and Land Department of the Hong Kong government ("BLD") is set out in your letter to Mr Staunton of 29th April (enclosure (11) above) and it is clear that this decision is based on the information provided by Mr Staunton in his letter of 16th October 1990 (enclosure (1) above) particularly on the following facts which were crucial to this decision but regrettably inaccurate:-

(1) Mr

Staunton's letter states in the second paragraph of the background that Letters of Administration were not applied for until 1979. This is incorrect. At the time Mr Lau's father died there were family squabbles and Mr Lau's older brother was obstructive in the question of the administration of their father's estate. We understand from Mr Lau that his brother refused to consent to the appointment of Mr Lau as administrator or

the appointment of all three brothers

as joint administrators. Communication between the brothers was of course difficult as Mr Lau resided in the UK and there was therefore а considerable delay in the application of the Letters of Administration apart from the usual administration delay that occurs in probate matters. Letters of Administration were granted in 1983. However, at this time Mr Lau's older brother died and there had to be amendments to the Grant of Probate, which took until 1986 to complete, and our client did not get evidence of property ownership in Hong Kong until 10th October 1988.

(2) Paragraph 3 of the background in Mr Staunton's letter states that in 1975 Mr Lau was informed that during the previous year the District Office of the New Territories had acquired a valuable piece of land from his father's estate, lot number 1487SB. This is incorrect. Mr Lau did not become aware of the compulsory land purchase until 1979. This occurred when Mr Lau went to Hong Kong and went by his father's property and saw that there was a government sign up saying "Private Property" and there were government contractors busy working on it.

(3) Paragraph 4 of the background states that in 1979 Mr Lau went to Hong Kong to follow up the matter of compensation. Again, this is inaccurate. We are of the view that Mr Lau went to Hong Kong in 1979 to endeavour to sort out the problems with his brother Lau Koon Yeung in respect of his father's estate and the Letters of Administration.

Continued../3