Mémoire présenté au nom du Gouvernement hellénique

13

SECTION B. - MÉMOIRES

SECTION B.-PLEADINGS

1. I~É~~OIRE PRÉSENTÉ AU NOM DU

GOUVERNEMENT HELLÉNIQUE

1.- Ex~osÉ DES FAITS
I. Monsieur Nicolas Eustache Ambatielos, armateur de natio- annexe A

nalité grecque, conclut, le 17 juillet 1919, avec le Gouvernement de
Sa Majesté britannique, représenté par le ministre de la Manne
marchande, au nom de qui agissait sir Joseph Maclay (plus tard
lord Maclay), un contrat d'achatde neuf bateaux à vapeur pour un
prix total deL 2.275.000. Ces bateaux étaient alors en construction
dans les chantiers de Hong-Kong et de Changhaï. La livraison
devait avoir lieuà des dates fixéespar les parties. Ce fait était
stipulé formellement dans le contratedelivery of the steamers in
the manner and within the time agreedn (article 7 du contrat).

2. Au ministère de la Marine marchande britannique, le service
chargé de la vente des navires était placé sous la direction de
sir John Esplen. Son subordonné immédiat était le major Bryan
Laing. D'avril 1919 à octobre 1920, ce dernier vendit des navires
pour un montant total de L ~oo.ooo.ooo. Les contrats conclus par
lui furent toujours ratifiéssans aucune modification par le ministère.
3. Les dates fixées pour la livraison des neuf navires furent
inscrites sur un bordereau remis à M. Ambatielos par le major Annexe B

Laing.
4. En corroboration ultérieure de ce fait, on trouve le télégrAnnexe C
envoyéle 31 octobre 1919 par ordre de sir John Esplen aux chan-
tiers de Hong-Kong :
«From Esplen, Shipminder,London-To Britannia, Hong Kong.
Followingfor Dodwell,War Trooper [l'un des neuf navires vendus
à M. .4mbatielosj. As the steamer was sold to huyers for delivery
not later than November it is of the utmost importance that she
should be completed by that datetop Cableimmediately progress
of coustructioni,(Signé M). J. STRAKEK (secrétaire desir John
Esplen).

Le témoignage de M. John O'Byrne, directeur adjoint à l'achat
de navires au ministère de la Marine britannique, devant la Cour
de première instance en 1922 est dans le même sens :«The ships
were delivered to Mr. Ambatielosater than anticipatedn (13Lloyd'Annexe D
List Law Reports, p. 377).

j. Comme à cette époque les prix du fret augmentaient sur les
marchés d'orient, M. Ambatielos pouvait espérer un profit consi-
dérable si les navires étaient livrésaux dates stipulées. Vu cette 14 ~~É~IOIRE HELLENIQUE (30 \'III51)

possibilité de profit additionel,le major Laing augmenta le pris
d'achat de f; joo.ooo par rapport aux prix du marché, comme
condition des dates fixes de livraison. En effet, les mêmes navires
avaient étéofferts quelques jours auparavant à d'autres armateurs,
mais sans la garantie de livraison, pour f; joo.ooo de moins. Ce iait
est attesté par une lettre en date di20 juillet 1922 di1major Laing
à son supérieur hiérarchique sir Joseph Maclay, où il est testuellc-
ment dit :«The Eastern freight markets at that time being vcry
high, 1 came to the conclusion, and laid my dediictions before
yourself and the Committee of the Blinistry of Shipping, that pro-

vided those ships could be delivered at the time stated by our
agents on behalf of the huilders, that tliey were worth, with their
position, owing to the freight they coulcl earn, anothcr L~OO,OOO
and this 1 added to what 1considered an outside pricc for the ships.
It was only by this argument that 1induced Ainbaticlos ta purchasc
Annexe E the ships 11(correspondence hIaclay-Laing).
6.Pourtant, aucun des navires ne fut livré à la date promise.
Au moment de la livraison effective, le marché du fret avait baissé

considérablement par rapport aux cours en vigueur à l'époque pour
laquelle les navires avaient étépromis. De ce faitM. Ambatielos ne
put pas réaliser le profit d'un million qu'il escomptait retirer du
voyage des ports de construction en Orient aux ports européens.
A vrai dire, il put réaliser un profit net de L ~oo.ooo par navire
par voyage sur les deux prcmiers navires, qui ne furent livrés
qu'avec un retard assez faible. Mais sur les autres il n'eut qu'un
médiocreprofit, et il souffrit, du fait du retard, un manqueàgagner
d'environ L r.ooo par jour et par navire. On soolignc quc certains
navires furent livrés avec six mois de retard. Cc rctard, joint à
la prodigieuse baisse du marché du fret, priva M. Ambatielos du
profit que lui aurait apporté une livraisoii en temps convenu. tliissi.
en novembre 1920, ne put-il faire face aux échéancesprbvues par
le contrat. Il conclut alors un accord avec le ministère britannique,

aux termes duquel, en échange de la livraison immédiate des deux
derniers navires, le MeIloit et le Stnthis, RI. Ambatielos constitue-
rait une hypothèque sur les sept autres navires, tous déjà placés
sous pavillon grec, pour garantir lepaiemciit du soldc du prix, soit
environ 7jo.000. Les hypothèques furcnt dûment constituées
AnnexeF (par nzortgageet deeds of couenant)le 4 novembre r92o. Ccpcndaiit,
la livraison du Mellon et du Stathis fut refuséepar le contrôleur de
la Marine, qui exigea que les navires hypothéqués fussent préa-
lablement immatriculés dans un port grec et qu'un certificat fût
délivrépar le conservateur dcs hypothèques maritimes déclarant
que ces navires n'étaient pas grevés d'une charge aiitéricure. Eti
réalité,la possibilité d'une inscription dans un port grec n'avait
étéprévue dans la convention que pour le cas où le certificat sus-
mentionné n'aurait pas pu être obtenu. Le ministère britannique
persista dans ses exigences, bien que le Gouverncmeiit grec l'eht

assuré et lui donnât garantie formelle que son hypothèque scrait IIE~IOIHE HEI.I.~NIQUF/ (30 VIII j~) 15

inscrite en premier rang. Il prétendit de plus que le dfellon et le
Stathis devaient également êtrchypothéqués,bien que le mortgage
et le deedof couenantne I'eussent pas prbvu. M. Ambatielos résista:
en effet, d'unc part la valeur des bâtiments hypothéqués couvrait
largement le soltle du prix, d'autre part il avait besoin de ces deux
iiavires, libres de toute charge, pour pouvoir au besoin les hypothé-
quer ou mêmeles vendre et rembourser ainsi sa clette auprès di1
ministère britannique.

7.Le ministère refusa néanmoinsclelivrer le iklellonet le Stathis.
Ile ce fait, RI. Ambatielos encourut une lourde perte ; il perdit
notamment le bénéficed'un avantageux contrat avec YArgentine.
I>e plus, peiidant les deux ans durant lesquels ces deux navires
furent retenus, M. Ambatielos dut payer les primes cl'assiirance
complètes et un intérêtde 10 'x,par an. Enfin, le Gouvememeiit
britannique saisit les sept autres navires. Iles incidents regrettables
marquèrent notamment la saisie du Panagis à Newcastle, à ce

point que le Foreign Officedut admettre qu'il y avait eu un« malen-
tend11 1). Annexe G
8. ]>èsle dkbut de ces difficultés,M. Ambatielos tenta d'arriver
à uii arrangement par des discussions directes avec le ministère de
la Narine britannique. On tenta de l'en empêcher en élevant contre
lui une réclamation fiscale dek z5o.000 avec menace d'emprisonne-
ment. Cette réclamation fut reconnue mal fondée en mai 1921.
XI. Ambatielos se reiidit aussitôt en Angleterre. Après de nom-
breuses démarches, un arrangement aboutit entre lui et le repré-

sentant du ministère, sir Ernest Glover, qui se montra conciliant. Annexe H
.\lais cet arrangement ne fut pas ratifiépar le ministère. Xf.Ambatie-
los exigea alors l'arbitrage, conformément à l'articl12 du contrat.
Le 24 juin 1921, XI. Ambatielos désignait 111. D. C. Leck, K. C.,Annexe i
comme son arbitre, tandis que le 29 juin, le Gouvernement
britannique désigna sou arbitre en la personne de Mr. IV.Norman
Raeburn, I<. C. Mais, peu après, le Gouvernement britannique hnnexe J
changea d'attitude et engagea contre M. Ambatielos une procédure
judiciaire fondée sur le défaut de paiement des hypothèques, qui
venaient d'arriver à échéance.Le Gouvernement britannique
disposait ainsi d'un nouveau moyen, créépar la prolongation des
négociations, et qu'il n'aurait pas pu soulever si l'arbitrage eût eu
lieu en juillet. 11. Ambatielos opposa sa demande de dommages-

intérêts par voie reconventionnelle. La Cour d'amirauté d'Angle-
terre, présidéepar Rlr.Justice Hill, rendit son jugement le 15janvier
1923. Elle condamna M. Ambatielos à payer au Board of Trade la Annexe K
somme de 300.000 et rejeta sa demaride reconventionnelle. Contre
toute évidence, le juge décidaqu'aucune date de livraison n'avait
étéfixéedans le contrat de 1919 (14 Lloyd'sList Lalo Reports,p. 5).
9. Cette procétliiredevant la Cour d'amirauté fut viciéeen deux
points : tout d'abord, ni sir Joseph Maclay ni le major Laing, les
deux principaux témoins, ne furent entcndus. En sccond lieu, la 16 arfsror~e HELLESIQUE (30 1711 51)

correspondance échangéeentre le major Laing et sir Joseph Maclay
en juillet 1922 (déjà citée en annexeE) ne fut jamais communiquée
àla Cour. Aussitôt lejugement rendu, le major Laing se fit un devoir
de transmettre à RI.Ambatielos copie de cette correspondance, d'où
il ressort à l'évidenceque les navires devaient êtrelivrésaux dates
indiquéeset que cette garantie avait étépayée 500.000.
IO.M. Ambatielos forma appel contre le jugement de la Cour

d'amirauté. Conformémentà la procédure anglaise, il requit I'auto-
risation de produire les documents qui venaient de parvenir entre
ses mains après le jugement de première instance. La Cour d'appel,
Annexe L et c'est là un vice additionnel de la procédure, refusa cette autorisa-
tion le5 mars 1923 (14 Lloyd's ListLaw Repovts, p. 389). Dans ces
conditions, l'appel au fond était dépourvu de tonte chance de
succès.Un appel ultérieur à la Chambre des Lords aurait étéinutile,
puisqu'il s'agissait d'une question purement de procédure (voir
sentence de l'arbitre Undén sur l'interprétation de l'article 181 du
Trait6 de Neuilly dans le différendgréco-bulgare de mars 1933 -
Une sentence arbitrale publiéepar Osten Undén, Upsala, 1933 -
et de l'arbitre Bagge, du 21 mai 1934, dans le différend anglo-
finlandais - affaire des navires finlandai- Decision in respect of
certairz Finnish uessels used during the war, H.M. Stationery
Office,London, 1934).

II. Il résulte de ces faits que M. Ambatielos a subi un grave
préjudice : les ternies de livraison n'ont pas étérespectés,la livrai-
son du Mellon et du Stathisa étérefusée contre tout droit. Le
résultat financier de ces opérations a ruiné M. Ambatielos en Ir:
dépouillant de ses navires et de toutes ses ressources. En effet, il
dut payer an Gouvernement britannique la somme de L 1.650.000,
prix d'achat des neuf navires, et en outre la somme de L 300.000
pour le transfert des équipages de l'Angleterre en Orient, coût des
améliorations des navires et autres frais indispensables. Le non-
paiement des hypothèques entraîna la vente par le Gouvernemeiit
de tous les navires, à l'exception du Yannis ;le pris en fut retenu
par le même Gou\~ernement. D'autre part, le Ynnnis fut vendu
également, pour L 127.500, mais cette somme fut entièrement affec-
tée au paiement des hypothèques, primes d'assurance et autres

déboursdu contrôleur de la Marine, entre 1920 et 1922.

II. - Ex~osÉ DE DROIT

12. Les faits ci-dessus appellent les remarques suivantes :
1) Il y a eu d'abord violation de la procédure anglaise par le
ministère britannique; qui n'a pas communiqué au premier jiige
des documents qui avaient une importance capitale pour la solution
du litige. Or, c'est un des principes de la procédure anglaise que .\IÉMOIRE HELLÉNIQUE (30 VIII 51) 17

toutes les pièces utiles doivent être communiquées à la partie
adverse. 11 est incontestable que le ministère n'a pas produit les
pièces en sa possession à l'ouverture du procès (voir déclaration
sous serment de hfr. C. W. Evans, chef adjoint du département du Annexe M
Treasury Solicitor, du lormars 1923). D'autre part, le Gouverne-
ment anglais s'est opposé à la production des pièces qui lui étaient
réclamées,en soutenant que l'obligation de prod~ire des pièces sur
ordre du juge (discovery) ne s'applique pas à l'Etat. II avait tort.
En effet, le contrat qui avait été conclu entre le ministère et

N. Ambatielos était un contrat purement commercial, conclu par le
ministère dans l'exercice d'une activité commerciale (conrmerciz~m)
et non pas dans i'exercice de la puissance publique (imperifim).
En d'autres termes, le ministère a traité d'égalà égalavec un parti-
culier. Il devait par conséquent être réputérenoncer à tout privi-
lège, mêmes'il en avait, ce qui n'était pas le cas. De plus, il n'a pas
appelé comme témoins devant le juge Hill les deux fonctionnaires
les plus importants dont le témoignage aurait étécapital, c'est-à-
dire sir Joseph Maclay et le major Laing.
2) Lorsque M. Ambatielos eut obtenu, après le jugement de

première instance, la correspondance Laing-Maclay, la Cour d'appel
anglaise refusa d'admettre ces nouveaux moyens de preuve. Cette
décision~violeune règle essentielle de la procédure britannique, qui
autorise en principe la production de la e fresh evidence »en seconde
instance.
13. En refusant la discouery, en ne produisant pas tous les docii-
ments utiles pour éclairer la justice, en ne faisant pas entendre le

major Laing comme témoin, bien qu'il l'ait fait citer à cet effet,
le ministère a léséles droits de la défense.Cette lésionest d'autant
plus grave que, si le procès avait été plaidé en Grèce dans des
circonstances analogues, le Gouvernement grec aurait étécontraint
de produire toutes les pièces en sa possession. M. Ambatielos n'a
pas bénéficié des garanties que la procédure accorde à la défense.
De ce fait, le principe de l'égalitéde traitement a étéviolé.

14. C'est dire que M. Ambatielos n'a pas obtenu justice. Or,
justice lui est due. L'article 15, alinéa 3, du Traité de commerce Annexe N
et de navigation conclu entre la Grèce et la Grande-Bretagne du
IO novembre 1886 prévoit :
cLes sujets de chacune des parties contractantes dans les
domaines et possessionsde l'autre auront libre accèsaux tribunaux
pour la poursuite et la défensede leurs droits sans autres conditions.
restrictionsou taxes que celles qu'elles imposent à leurs propres
sujets.

Ce texte garantit une égalité absoluede traitement aux ressor-
tissants de chacun des États qui se présentent devant les tribunaux
de l'autre, comme demandeur ou comme défendeur. En accordant
le libre accès de ces tribunaux, chacun des Etats l'accorde sans
limite. En premier lieu, cela va sans dire, l'étranger doit jouir des 18 JIÉDIOIRE HELLENIQUE (30 VIII 51)

mêmesdroits et privilèges que le national. Mais il y a plus : il ne
suffit pas que l'étranger bénéficiedu libre accèsà la justice, il faut
encore que cette justice satisfasse au droit international.Ainsi que
le déclare le mémoire du Gouvernement finlandais en date du
17 septembre 1931 dans Saffaire déjà citée des navires finlandais :

«La réclamation du Gouvernement est fondéesur le 'fait qiie
l'État visén'a pas satisfaità ses obligations internationales faute
d'un système juridique et judiciaire qui permette aux particuliers
d'obtenir réparation confannémentau droit international. D
15. En effet, les principes reconnus à l'article 15 du Traité de
1886 ne sont que l'application particulière d'un principe beaucoup
plus généralauquel les parties ont adhéré : le droit de libre com-

mzbnic~tion.Ce droit implique un minimum de facultés essentielles,
en particulier la liberté de la défense. Si ce droit de libre com-
munication est' accordé, les lois qui l'organisent constituent une
modalité interne d'application d'un devoir international. Par consé-
quent, une restriction imposée aux droits du défendeur, mêmesi
elle s'applique aux nationaux, ne lie pas automatiquement Sétran-
ger. Car SEtat qui s'engage à accorder le droit de libre communi-
cation s'engage à créer, en faveur des ressortissants de l'etat
co-contractant, une situation juridique conforme au droit inter-
national. En d'autres termes, il est tenu non pas seulement d'assi-
miler l'étranger aux nationaux en ce qui concerne l'administration
de la justice, mais aussi et avant tout de garantir à Sétranger une
justice qui satisfasse aux nécessitésdu. commerce universel. En

l'espèce, on l'a vu, le Gouvernement anglais n'a pas accordé cette
justice à M. Ambatielos.
16. De plus, la conduite de l'instance elle-même donne une
impression pénible. A l'audience de première instance, l'avocat du
ministère britannique déclarait formellement que toutes les pièces

Annexe O avaient étéproduites («the evidence is al1out ...the evidence has
al1been given »).On sait qu'il n'en était rien :les pièces essentielles
n'avaient pas étéproduites. De même,le major Laing avait été
cité à comparaitre comme témoin à la requête du ministère, dis-
pensant ainsi le défendeur de l'assigner ; au dernier moment, le
ministère renonce à le faire entendre, privant ainsi le défendeur de
ses moyens de preuve.
Dans ces circonstances, il aurait étéindispensable que M. Amba-
tielos fût autorisé à soulever ses nouveaux moyens en appel. Il
devait y êtreautorisé en vertu des principes généraux du droit
international. Ces principes exigent un double degréde juridiction
et la possibilité de produire en appel les moyens de preuve qui
n'avaient pu êtreproduits en première instance. Les règles du droit
interne ne dispensent pas del'observation de ce devoir international.

17. Mais il ne suffit pas de dire qu'en l'espèce lesystème de la
procédure anglaise n'a pas correspondu aux exigences du droit international. On est contraint de constater que cc système a fonc-
tionné de façon à paralyser les droits du défendeur. On a montré
que toute l'attitude du ministère britannique prouve qu'il consi-
dérait AI. Ambatielos avec défaveur, en tant qu'étranger. Ilès
avant le procès, il a tenté de l'empêcherde venir en Angleterre en
élevant contre lui uiic réclamation fiscale qu'il a dû rcconnaître
no11i(,~i(ii,011nt. r,.v1~,11~1r1.isur ~';IIII~IILIIIiiini~t~~r,n c~wrs

tic iiri>v;011i.s;iiniiicr;i m:iintzn3iii,lc"iiicx9n(1%1.2Cour LI'a.II»,<I
qui fait preuve de la mêmepartialité :dans d'autres espèces, qui
concernaient cette fois des sujets britanniques, cette mêmeCour,
et l'un des deux juges qui ont prononcé dans l'affaire Ambatielos,
ont admis avec libéralitéla production .de nouveaux moyens de
preuve en appel. Pour obtenir de la Cour d'appel l'autorisatiori de
produire les document's qui n'étaient parvenus en sa possession
qu'après la clôture de la première instance, l'avoué de M. Ambatie-
los, Mr: F. P. D. Gaspar, produisit une déclaration sous serment, Annexe P
conformément à la procédure. Il déclara que la copie de la corres-

pondance LaingMaclay lui avait étéremise par le major Laing
après le jugement ; qu'il ignorait, avant ce moment, que sir Joseph
Maclay avait étémêlé à la vente des navires, qu'il n'avait pas pu
par conséquent le citer comme témoin ;qu'il ressort à l'évidencede
cette correspondance que les navires devaient êtrelivrés à des dates
déterminéeset que cette garantie avait été payée d'une prime de
500.000.
18. Il est difficile de comprendre que la Cour d'appel n'ait pas

fait usage de son pouvoir en faveur de M. Ambatielos. Dans une
autre espèce, un des deux membres de cette Cour, Lord Justice
Scrutton, devait déclarer qu'il convenait d'autoriser la production
d'une nouvelle preuve lorsque son importance était aso material
that its absence might cause a miscarriage of justice II(Sinanide v.
La maison Kosmeo, Law Times Reports, 1928, vol. 139, p. 365).
Le mêmejuge avait utilisé la mêmephrase dans l'arrêt Gnest v.
lbbotson (1922) (Law Journal Reports, King's Bench Division, t. 91,
p. 558), en ajoutant que les nouveaux documents étaient admissibles
lorsque sthey could not, with reasonable care and diligence, have

been brought forward at the trial B. De même,dans l'affaire Nichol-
son v. Inverforth, la Cour d'appel décida :I(\lie have clearly estab-
lished that the new evidence must be of such weiglit as, if believed,
would probably have an important influence on the resiilt. That
did not mean that the new evidence must be conclusive in the
appeilant's favour. But it must be of such a character as might
have affected the judgment of the judge at the trial, if it had then
been available. Certain letters have been discovered since the trial
which were not then available to the plaintiff, and the Court has
come to the conclusion that effect ought to be given to them by
nem trial. II(The Times, 17 octobre
allowing them to be used at a
1936.) De même, lordHalsbury, statuant sur une requête analogue,
avait déclaré :20 IIÉ~IOIRE HELLÉKIQUE (30 YIII 51)

o It would be disastrous to the administration of justice if it
could be supposed that by reasoii of any technicality the real tmth
could be shut out.»(The Nealh HarbozuSmeltitzgC RollingWorks,
The Times Law Reports, vol. 2, 1885-1886,p. 94.)
Il convient de souligner que lord Halsbury n'était pas convaincu,
dans cette espèce, que le requérant avait fait preuve de toute la
diIigence possible en première instance ; il a néanmoins fait droit à
la requête. De mêmeenfin, dans l'affaire H.M.S. Hawke (~grg),

Times Law Reports, vol. 28, p. 319 (P.) 49 (H.L.),la Cour d'appel
et la Chambre des Lords admirent l'une et l'autre que des preuves
nouvelles pouvaient êtreproduites en seconde instance seulement,
mêmesi le plaideur avaik eu l'occasion de les produire auparavant.
11s'agissait d'une collision entre deux navires. Les propriétaires du
navire endommagé n'entreprirent des recherches pour en retrouver
l'épave qu'après que le jugement de première instance leur eût
donné tort. Ils demandèrent à la Cour d'appel l'autorisation de
produire le résultat de leurs recherches. La Cour d'appel les autorisa
$rima facie à administrer ces preuves, bien qu'il eût paru douteux
que les recourants aient fait preuve de la diligence nécessaire en

première instance. Et tout dcrnièrement. la Cour d'appel décida
d'accepter la preuve de deux nouveaux témoins dans le procès
entre Sir George Heazrmontet Lady Beaumont (IO juillet 1951).
19. La décisionde la Cour d'appel est donc c0ntraire.à la juris-
prudence de cette Cour. C'est i tort que, dans l'affaire Ambatielos,

elle a insisté uniquement sur le dcsoir de diligence, en passant com-
plètement sous silence l'importance capitale des nouvelles pièces
pour le sort du procès.
Il convient d'ailleurs de souligner ici que, dès qu'il s'aperçut que
le ministère renonçait à faire entendre le major Laing, M. Ambatie-
los fitson possible pour le faire assigner à son tour, mais en vain.
Peu importe en définitive: nul ne peut reprocher en tout cas à
M. Ambatielos de n'avoir pas fait citer sir Joseph Maclay en pre-
mière instance en qualité de témoin, puisqu'il ignorait totalement
que ce fonctionnaire pourrait éclairerle débat. Il est dès lors incom-

préhensible que la Cour d'appel ait également rejeté la requéte
tendant à l'audition de sir Joseph Rlaclay.
20. Enfin, le cas de RI.Ambatielos a étéla source d'un enrichisse-
ment indu (acnjz~stnrichment)par le Gouvernement britannique. Il
est constant que ?VIA . mbatielos a payéf: 5oo.000 en échange de la
garantie de livraison des navires aux dates fixées.Commc les navires

n'ont été.livrés qu'avec un retard considérable, la somme de
~00.000 se trouve sans cause entre les mains du Gouvernement
britannique (faih~reof the consideration). En application des prin-
cipes généraux de droit, le Gouvernement britannique doit être
considéré commeinjustement enrichi de ce moiitaiit (nzoneyhad and
received or zinjzcstenrichnze~it) voir l'arrét di1 Conseil privé dans
l'affaire Royal Bank of Canada v. Rex, Law Reports, Appeal Cases, MÉMOIRE HELLEXIQU (E0 VIII 51) 2 1

1913, pp. 283 et 296 ; voir également l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel
Wilson v. Church, Law Reports, Chancery Division, 1879, p. 50 ;
voir enfin l'arbitrage s Lena >: ((Cette sociétéétait en droit d'être
indemnisée en espèces pour les bénéfices dont elle avait &té
injustement privée d'après les principes d'un uiijust enrichment. II
(Lena Goldfields Arbitration Award, 2 septembre 1930, Anrtz~al
Digest, 1929-1930. p. 3.)

21. Le Gouvernement britannique n'a donc pas exécutéses obli-
gations internationales dans le cas de M..Ambatielos. Il a refusé
de produire les pièces qui lui étaient demandées, il a soutenu qu'il
avait produit tous les documents concernant le litige alors que
des pièces essentielles (la correspondance Laing-Maclay) restaient
secrètes. Le fonctionnement de la justice anglaise n'a pas permis

M. Ambatielos de défendre librement ses intérêts.Il lui a éténotam-
ment refusé de produire en seconde instance des documents qu'il
n'avait obtenus qu'après la clôture de la première instance. Il y a
eu déni de justice.
22. Il y a eu de plus inégalité detraitement. Le ministère n'a pas
observé, dans la conduite du procès, lesprincipes traditionnels qu'il

applique lorsqu'il est en litige avec des sujets britanniques : il s'est
retranché derrière le privilège de non-discovery,alorsque la coutume
voulait qu'il n'en fasse pas usage. Il y a euinégalitéde traitementdans
ce sens encore que les règles de la procédure anglaise régissant la
production des pièces en première instance et celles qui organisent la
production de nouveaux moyens de preuve enseconde instanceaient
étéinterprétées de façon particulièrement stricte dans le cas de
M. Ambatielos. En outre, le Gouvernement britannique n'a. pas
respecté les obligations engendrées par le contrat de vente de 1919.
Cette inobservation est d'autant plus grave que le Traité de 1886

garantit aux ressortissants des deux nations lc traitement de la
nation la plus favorisée. (Article10 du Traité de 1886 et articles 3
et 4 du Traité de 1926.) Il y a eu aussi aenrichissement injiiste >,
de la part duGouvernementbritannique en faisant payerà hl. Amba-
tielos un excédent de 5oo.000 comme garantie des dates de
livraison des navires - dates qui 'ne furent pas observées par le
Gouvernement britannique. Le dommage qui est résulté de ces
violations est constant. 11suffit aujourd'hui de poser le principe de
la réparation, quitte à en déterminer ultérieurement le montant
ensemble avec tous les dommages-intérêts et frais.

23. La violation de la part de ce Gouvernement des principes
ci-dessus énumérés appellel'arbitrage prévu dans le protocole
annexé au Traité de commerce et de navigation entre la Grèce et
la Grande-Bretagne du IO novembre 1886 aux termes duquel:
CProtocole.-Au moment de procéder,ce jour, à la signature du
Traité de commerce et de navigation entre la Grande-Bretagne et
la Grèce,lesplénipotentiairesdes deux Hautes Parties contractantes
ont déclarece qui suit : Toutes questions qui peuvent s'élever sur l'interprétation ou
l'exécutiondu ré senttraité. ou les conséouencesde toute violation

de ce traité, &ont soumises'quaiid les ntDyens de les réglerdirecte-
ment par accord rimiableseront épuisés , la décisionde commissions
d'arbitrage, et le résultat de cet arbitrage sera obligatoire pour les
deu~ Go-~~ ~ne~~--~--~~.-.
Les membres de ces commissions seront choisis par les deus
Gouvernements d'un commun accord : àdéfaut,cliacune des oarties
nommera un arbitre ou un egal nombre d'arbitres, et les arbitres
ainsi nommés choisiront un sur-arbitre.
La ~rocédured'arbitraee devra dans chaoue cas êtredéterminée
par lésparties contractantes: à défaut, la commission d'arbitrage
sera en droit de la déterminer elle-mêmed'avance.
Les plénipotentiaires soussignés ont coiisenti que ce protocole
sera soumis aux deux Hautes Parties contractantes en mème temps
que le traité, et qiie, lorsqu'il sera ratifié, les accords contenus au
protocole seront 'également considérés comme approii\~és,sans
nécessité d'une ratification expresse ultérieure. En foi de quoi.
etc....ii

Le Trait4 de 1886 est tout entier basé sur I'arbitrage que le
Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni est convenu d'accepter

a) pour interprétation
b) pour exécutioii
c) pour violation
de toutes questions qui peuvent s'éleversur ses termes.

24. Le traité postérieur du Traité de commerce et de navigation

gréco-britannique du 16 juillet 1926 institue une procédure com-
Annexe Q plémentaire, le recours à la Cour permanente de Justice intematio-
nale. qui n'existait pas en 1886, remplacée aujourd'hui par la Cour
internationale de Justice. L'article 29 de ce traité stipulc en effet :

aLes deux parties contractantes sont d'accord en principe que
tout différendqui peut s'éleverentre elles quant à la juste interpré-
tation ou l'application d'une quelconque des stipulations du présent
traité sera, à la requêtede l'une des parties contractantes, soumis
à l'arbitrage.
La Cour d'arbitrage à laquelle les différendsseront soumis sera
la Cour permaiiente de Justice internationale, i moins que, par
une convention particulière, les deux parties n'en décident autre-
ment. 1)

25. Le Traité de 1926 se complète par unc déclaration finale
ainsi conçue :
i11est bien entendu que le Traité de commerce et de navigation

entre la Grande Bretagne et la Grèce eu date d'aujourd'hui ne
porte pas préjudiceaux réclamations faites au nom de particuliers,
qiii sont baséessur les dispositions du Traité de commerce anglo-
grec dc 1886 et que tous différends qui pourraient s'éleverentre
nos deux Goiivernements, quant à la validité de ces réclamations,
doivent. A la demande <lel'un des Gouvernements. êtresoumis à JIÉ~IOIRE HELLÉNIQVE (30 v11151) 23
I'arbitrage,conformémena tuxdisposition$duprotocoledu~onovem-
bre 1586 annexéaudit traité. o

$6. Le Gouvernement hellénique prit fait et cause pour son
ressortissant d&sle 12 septembre 1925. (h'ote2335/N3/25.) A cette Annexe Rr
note le Gouvernement britannique répondit par une fin de non- Annexe sr

recevoir le 30 octobre 1925. (No C.135oq/11769/19.) Il repoussa
également l'arbitrage proposé par les notes helléniques des Annexes RZ,
7 février1933 (no358/L/33), 3 août 1933 (no2077/i2/33),30mai1934 R3. R4. R5.
(ne 1271/L/34), 2 janvier 1936 (no 60/L/36), 21 novembre 1939.et R6 et Ri
finalement du 6 août 1940 (no3734/L/40). Toutes ces propositions
réitéréesd'un arbitrage conformément aux Traités de 1886 et de
1926 ont étérepousséespar le Gouvernement britannique, qui n'a

fait preuve d'aucun esprit de conciliation (notes do 29 mai 1933, Annexes Sz.
no C.4625/117z/rg, du 28 décembre 1933. no C.IIO~O/II~Z/I~. du S3+ 54. S5.
7 novembre 1934,no R.6043/3146/19, du 1erjuillet 1936,noR.36631
169119,et du 26 décembre 1939, no R.106j8/10658/1g). Les efforts
du Gouvernement helléniquepour obtenir un règlementamiable par
voie de négociations directes entre les deux Gouvernements n'ont
dorinéaucun résultat.

27. Le Gouverncrnent hellénique s'abstint vcilontairement de
poursuivre sa demande d'arbitrage pendant les hostilités de 1940

à 1945, annéespcndaiit lesquelles les deux nations combattirent en '
alliéesdans un effort commun qui transcendait toutes autres diver-
gences. Nais, dès le rétablissement des conditions normales, le
Gouvernement hellénique renouvela sa requêteaux fins d'obtenir
que l'affaire Ainbatielos fût soumise à la Commission d'arbitrage
prévue par le protocole annexé au Traité de 1886 (notc du II mai Annexe R8
1949, no 277j/L/49). Cctte proposition fut sommairement repoussée
par le Gouvernement britannique le juillet 1949 (aide-mémoire :\nneres7

no R.5023/14811/19), qui déclara formellement qu'il considérait .
cette affaire conime terminée. C'est dire qu'aujourcl'hui la voie des
négociations diplomatiques est ferméeet que le Goiiverncmeiit hel-
lénique a épuisétous les moyens d'accord amical de cc différend.

28. L'échecde ces négociationset le refus opposépar le Gouver-
nement britanniquc aux offres réitéréesd'arbitrage faites par le
Gouvernement hellénicluemettent en fonction les dispositions du
Traité de 1886, combinéesavec celles de la déclaration finale du
Traité de 1926 et avec l'article 29 de ce traité. Comme déjàénoncé,
cet article dispose que toute divergence portant sur l'interprétation

ou l'application du traité, y compris la déclaration finale, sera
soumise à la Cour permanente de Justice internationale à la requête
de l'une des parties contractantes.

29. Le Gouvernement hellénique invoque les motifs suivants à
l'appui de son recours :
I) Les Traités de 1886 et 1926 obligent le Gouvernement du
Royaume-Uni à traiter les ressortissants hellènesconforméinentauxl'ajustement ou le règlement de différends ou de situations de
caractère international », et de l'article 36, paragraphe 3, de la
Charte, selon lequel e les différends d'ordre juridique devraient,
d'une manière générale, être soumis par les parties à la Cour
internationale de Justice n.Il est incontestable que le différendqui
met en opposition le Gouvernement hellénique et le Gouverne-

ment du Royaume-Uni est « un différend d'ordre juridique r sus-
ceptible de faire l'objet d'unrr&t de la Cour.

Fait à La Haye, le 30 août 1951

(Signé) N. G. LELY,
Ministre de Grèce,

Agent du Gouvernement hellénique
prèsla Cour internationale de Justice. Annexe A

CONTRAT DU 17 JUILLET 1919

AN AGREEMENT made the 17th July 1919, between THE SEIIPPING
CONTROLLER on belialf of His Majesty the King (thereinafter called
"the Vendor") ofthe onepart, and NICHOLAE S. AMBAT~~~LoO fS,rgostoli,
Ce~halonia. Greece (thereinafter called "the Purchaser"), of the otlier
pak.
I. The Vendor agrees to sel1 and the Purchaser agrees to purchase
for the total sum of ~z.zj5,ooo the nine steamers more particularly
descnbed in the schedule hereto noiv being built for the Vendor by the
Contractors whose names are set out in the said schedule and numbered
iii the shipbuilding yard of the Contractors as also set out in the said
schedule.
2. The purchase money for the said steamers and engines shall be
paid as follows :
A deposit of ten per cent in cash payable as to A~oo,ooothereof upon
signing this Agreement aiid as ta the balance of the said deposit
withiii one month tliereafter and the balance in cash in London in
exchange for a Legal Biil of Sale or Builders' certificate within
72 hours of written notice of the steamer's readiness for delivery
being given ta the Purchaser or his Agent, such delivery ta be
given at the Contractor's yard.

3. The steamers shall be deemed ready for delivery immediately after
-they have been accepted by the Vendor from the Contractors.
the Vendor shall have access to the premises of the Contractors at al1
times dunng business hours, and shall have al1proper facilities afforded
with a view ta making inspections.
The Purchaser shall have no power of rejecting work or matenal
but may make representations in respect thereof to the Vendor, who
shall thereupon decide whether the same is or is not in accordance with
the terms of the Contract between the Vendor and the Contractor and
shall approve or reject the sanie accordingly.
5. All classifications, anchor and chain certificates relating to the
steamers shall be handed to the Purchaser on delivery of the steamers
and also copies of the type specifications and plan.
Al1the spare gear boats and outfit, provided for in the specificatioiis
of the steamers and engines and deliveries by the Contractors to the
\'endor, shall be delivered to the Purchaser on delivery of the steamers.
The guns fitting and ammunition on board the said steamers are not
included in this contract and shail be removed by the Vendor before
delivery.
6. On payment of the balance of the purchase money as aforesaid
alegal bill of sale free from incumbrance for the whole of the shares in
.each of the steamers or the Builder's certificates for each of the steamers
shall be handed to the Purchaser at the Vendor's expense and the
:steamers shall thereafter be at the espense and risk of the Purchaser. ANNEXES AU MEMOIRE HELLENIQUE (A) 27

The steamers with their spare gear and outfit shall be taken with au
faults and errors of description without any allowance or abatement.
7. If defaultbe made by the Purchaser in the payment of the purcliase
money the deposit shall be forfeited and the steamers may be re-sold
by public or private sale and al1loss and expense arising from the re-sale
be borne by the Purchaser, who shall pay interest thereon at the rate
of five pounds per cent per annum. If default be made by the Vendor
in the execution of Legal Bills of Sale or in the delivery of the steamers
in the manner and "within the time agreed",the Vendor shail returii to
the Purchaser the deposit paid with interest at the rate of five pounds
per.cent per annum.
8: If any of the steamers became an actual or constructive total loss
before they are at the risk of the Purchaser, this Agreement shall be
nuil and void as to such steamer and the deposit paid in respect
thereof shall he returned by the Vendor to the Purchaser but without
interest.
9. If default be made by the Contractors in the delivery of any of
the steamers to the Vendor then the Vendor may at his option either
cancel this Agreement in respect of such steamer or steamers and return
the deposit paid in respect thereof to the Purchaser, or may substitute
for the steamer or steamers hereby agreed to be purchased another
steamer or steamers of the same type and expected to be ready at or
about the same date, and this agreement shall apply mutatis mutandis
to the purchase of the new steamer or steamers.
IO. The steamers shall not be subject to any trading restrictions
whatsoever.

II. The wireless apparatuses are not the property of the Vendor, and
are not included in this contract, and the Purchaser undertakes to
make his own arrangements with the Marconi Company in connection ,
therewithandin default ofsuch arrangements beingmadeshall indemnify
the Vendor in respect of any claim by the Marconi Company against
the Vendor.
12. Any dispute arising under this Agreement shall be referred under
the provisions of the Arbitration Act 1889 to the Arbitration of two
persons in London, one to be nominated by the Vendor and one by the
Purchaser, and in the event of their being unable to agree to an umpire
to be appointed by them whose decision shall be final and binding upon
both parties hereto.
13. A Commission of one and one-half pounds per cent upon the
purchase price shall be paid by the Vendor to Messrs. FERGUSSOX &
LAWupon delivery of the steamers to the Purchaser provided that in
the event of this Agreement becoming void or being cancelledno commis-
sion shall be payable.
14. The Vendor undertakes to obtain the consent of the BOARD OF
TRADEto the transfer of the said steamers or any steamer or steamers
substituted therefor to the Greek flag upon delivery and at theexpense
of the Purchaser to do al1that may be necessary on his part to enable
the steamers to be so transferred.28 ANNEXES AU ~~ÉMOIRE HELLENIQUE (B)

THIS SCHEDULE ABOVE REFERRED TO :

Contractors Yard Xo. PriCe
Taikoo Dockyard Hong Kong 180 L289,166,13,4.
do 177 289,166,13,4.
do 181 289.166.13,4.
Hongkong and Wampoa Dock 564 289.166.13.4.
do 565 289.166.13,4.
do 570 289.166,13.4.
Shanghai Dock and
Enfineenna Co. 1505 18o.000. o,o.

For and on behalf of Nicholas E. Ambatielos,
(Signed) FERGUSSO N LAW.

As Agents.
17th July 1919.

Certified that this is a true copy of the original contract retained in
the possession of the Ministry of Shipping.
(Signed) J. O'BYRNE,

For Accountant General Illinistry of Shipping.

Annexe B
DÉCLARATION

DE 1\1.BRYANLAING
RELATIVE A L.k VENTE PAR LE MINISTÈRE DE LA MARINE IIARCHASDE,

POUR LE CO>lPTE DE SA MAIESTE ,U VAPEUR «AMBATIELOSii ET
AUTRES NAVIRES
1, BRYANLAING,of 73, St. Stephen's House, Westminster, in the
County of London, DO SOLEMNLY and SINCERELY DECLARE as foiiows:
1. On the 1st Apnl 1919. 1 was appointed Assistant Director of Ships
Purchases and Sales at HisMajesty's Ministry of Shipping. The Minister
of Shipping at that time was Sir Joseph Maclay and the Director of
Purchases and Sales was Sir John Esplen.
z. During the time when 1 was negotiating the purchase and sale
of ships for the Ministry, that is, from the 1st April 1919 uotil October

1920, although Sir Joseph Esplen was nominal head of the Department
during that time, 1 sold on behalf of His Majesty's Government over
one hundred million pounds worth of ships and in no single instance
was any exception taken or alteration made to the terms which 1 had
agreed with the purchasers on behalf of the Shipping Controller. It
my habit to report the deal which 1 had made and the Contract would
be signed in that form embodying the terms which 1 alone had agreed
with the purchasers. In fact on more than one occasion when otherpersons in the Department had negotiated for the sale of ships, including
the Minister himself. 1 had obiected uointine out that there could not
be twu persuiis\rrli<i tic1i:irgi.of iicguti;itioiis for ~liuf:shipj aiid
iii t1.C~SCSrcfcr~c'ilto the ne;.~ri?tioiis a.liich h~d bcen nlarlc by pcr-ons
utlier tli;in mvsçlf wcre iaiicïllc(l ;ind 1 sul>scriiieiitlv re-jold rlies ilne
boats at an hhanced price.
3. At the same time as 1 was at the Ministry of Shipping, 1 was also
auuointed on the Lord Lvtton Committee of the Admiraltv where mv
A A
powers were of a similar nature and similar occasions arose where sales
had been tentatively entered into by persons other than myself and
where 1 objected and where they were annulled and later the same ships
were sold by myself at an enhanced price.
4. 1 was also at this time largely consulted by the Chartering Depart-
ment of the Ministrv of Shiuuine and I was in this wav able to know the
position of freightsdin the ;orla market because th&e would naturally
be roverned bv what shi~s were in the district for the-.urpose of car.vi-~
goGds which had to bè moved.
5. It was while 1 was in this position tha1 first made the acquaintance
of Mr. G. E. Ambatielos who approached me on behalf of his brother
Mr. N. E. Ambatielos concerning the purchase of tonnage, and 1offered
to sel1him nine sliips then building to the order of His Majesty's Govern-
ment at Hong Kong and Shanghai and 1 recommended that he should
purchase these ships because 1 knew that at that time the Eastern
freight market was very high and the owner of these ships would be
able to make a very substantial profit provided a free charter-party
could be obtained (which 1 arranged) instead of Blue Book rates. It

was also advantageous if the right price could be obtained for His
Majesty's Government to sel1 these ships for the reason that it would
have been necessary to send out crews and stores to bnng them home
and 1 estimated that those would have cost at least L~oo,ooo.I therefore
bargained on behalf of His Majesty's Government with Mr. G. E.
Ambatielos and later confirmed the matter with his brother Mr. N. E.
Ambatielos for the sale to them of these ships at an average price of
L36. o.O per ton dead weight. 1 was able to do this because 1 tirst
ascertained and arranged that a free charter-party should be given
and also caused cahlegrams to be sent to His Majesty's representatives
in Hong Kong and Shanghai and asked them to cable definite dates
on which deliveries could he promised; and it was because 1was able
to offer to Mr. Ambatielos firstly the free charter-party and secondly
the position then ohtaining in the Eastern freiglit market, which position
was made certain by my being able to offer him definite dates for delivery
of the ships, that Iinduced him to sign the Contract dated the 17th July
1919.In my position at the Ministry of Shipping 1was not able to contract
with Mr. Ambatielos in such a way as would have bound him to share

with His hfajesty's Government the profit which 1 expected he would
have been able to make owing to this combination of free charter-party
and certain delivery dates. I estimated that the profit which he was
likely to make would be about one million pounds over and above Blue
Book rates and I infomed him that I considered that he ought to
pay to His Majesty's Government for the pri\.ilege of the open charter-
party and the freights obtainable at that period wliich was made possible
by the certain delivery dates one half of that expected profit, namely
~çoo,ooo, and so I added that amount to the purchase price of the ships. ANNEXES AU ~IÉMOIRE HELLÉNIQUE (B)
30'
1 was able to assure him froni Messrs. David Pinkney & Co. \~zliomhe
had telephoned whilst lie mas at the bfinistry of Shipping that these
high freights would be obtainable if the vessels were delivered by the
dates agreed.

6. The Ministry of Shipping's ordinary Form of Contract was therefore
prepared providing for the sale to iilr. Ambatielos of the nine vessels
therein mentioned. Prior to this Contract being signed on the 17th July
1919 I had given to hlr. G. E. Ambatielos a piece of buff paper on which
those which had been cabled to me as reliable dates from Hong Kongs
aiid Shanghai. U'hen therefore Mr. Ambatielos on the signing of the
Contract pointed out to me that in the written Contract these specific
dates were not mentioned 1 informed him that if he would look at
Clause 7 of the Contract he would see that delivery woiild have to be
made "within the time agreed" and that those words meant the dates
which 1 had already giveii to him and which were wntten on the buff
slip of paper.

7. In confirmation of the fact that there were fixed delivery dates a
telegram was sent, signed Straker, Secretary to Sir John Esplen, whowas
on the Committee of the blinistry of Shipping, wh'ichtelegram was sent
on his instructions after a meeting of the Committee reading as follo:s

"From Esplen, Sh'ipminder,London,
To Britannia Hongkong.
Foiiowing for Dodwell, War Trooper.
As the steamer was sold to huvers for deliverv not later than Novem-
ber it is of utmost importance ihat she should be completed by that
date stop Cable immediately progress of construction. (Signed) M.
J. STRAKER."

This was sent because the Committee were bccoming worried at the
continual delay and they foresaw either cancellation of the Contract or
a claim being made against them.
8. Prior to the case coming oti in Court Sir Joseph Maclay wrote to
me on the 12th July 1922, asking in so many words whether or not 1
had agreed to give guarantee dates for delivery thus confirming the
powers that 1 had for the disposal of His Majesty's ships and which
1 have enumerated in the preceding paragraphs. On the 20th July 1922.
1wrote back to Sir Joseph explaining the position as 1 have set out in
the preceding paragraphs hereof, namely, that 1 was able to get
hlr. Ambatielos to pay an extra ~5oo.000because 1was able to get him
to share the profit which he was to make with the Ministry of Shipping
owing to the high Eastern freights then ruling and to the fact that
aranteed delivery dates could be assured, and on the 24th July 1922,
gr Joseph acknowledged my letter without comment. 1 take it that
it was because of this that1 was not asked to give evidence on behalf
of His Majesty's Government at the trial, although 1 was subpcenaed
by them and could not therefore be approached by MI. Ambatielos.

9. This is the evidence which 1 would have given to the Court at the
time had 1 been called. And 1 make this solemn Declaration conscientiously believing the
same to be tme and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Decla-
rations Act 1835.
DECLARED at Palace Chambers. Westminster, in the County ofLondon,
this 19th day of January 1934.

(Signe4 BRYANLAING.
Hefore me :
(Signed) [Illegible.]
A Commissioner for Oaths

TÉLÉGRAM~IE EXVOYÉ PAR ORDRE DE SIR JOHN ESPLEN

AUX CHANTIERS DE HOXG-KONG

31st October 1919.
From Esplen, Shipminder, London, To Bntannia, Hong Kong.-
Following for Dodwell, War Trooper.-As the steamer was sold to buyers
for delivery not later than November it is of the utmost importance
that she should be completed by that date stop Cable immediately
progress of construction. M. J. STRAKER.

Annexe D

EXTRAIT DU COMPTE RENDU (REPORT)
DE L'AFFAIRE AMBATIELOS

Devant M. Justice Hill - 28 novembrergzz
13 Lloyd's List Law RePorts (p. 377)
Mr. John O'Byrne, of the Marine Department of the Board of Trade
and Director of Ship Purchase. gave evidence in support of the Crown's
case that Mr. Ambatielos had not carried ont his obligations under the
mortgage deeds and deeds of covenaut.
In cross-examination by Mr. Bateson, WITNESSagreed that he had
insisted upon the ships being insured to their full value. He also admitted
that the ships were delivered to Mr. Ambatielos later than anticipated,
but said that no complaint was made till hlarch 1921, and even then
no daim was made. It was tme that by reason of the late delivery the
pnrchaser could not make so much money out of the ships. Annexe E

CORRESPOXDANCEENTRE SIR JOSEPH MACLAY
ET LE MAJOR LAING

Station Hotel, Dornoch.
12th July 1922.
Strictly private and confidential.

Dear Maior Laing,
Ian, still ;ictin:isAd\,isor in connectic>iwitli winding up the ;~fi:iirs
of thc old Xlinistry of Sliipping, and \vlien in [.ondon reccntly tlie que5-
tion came iiiiof tlie vessels iihicli wrrc sold to .\lr :\iiihatielos.
At the time the sale was being negotiated you will remember you
wérein constant touch with me, but so far as 1 remember nothing was
ewr said :il)out giinranteeiiig <l;itesof delivrry, \i,hicli, of couiteu,as
impossible to do. 1 presiime !,ou told purchascr thnt tlic \linistry \voiild
do anvtliiiig itcould to hasten (leli\wy. and Iiopcd-for dates might he
mentioned,-but nothing beyond this.
Will you kindly let mehave a line to Duchal, Kilmalcolm.Renfrewshire.
1 am North having afew days holiday.
1 tmst al1 rroeswell with vou and with kind remembrances.
Yours sincërely,
(Signed) J. MACLAY.

Strictly private and confidential. *
20th July 1922.
Dear Sir Joseph,

1 was delighted to get your letter and to hear you were at last taking
a holiday. Please accep. my ..ologie. for not writing sooner. It is due
to my heing away.
With regard to the sale of the ships to Ambatielos, 1 have, as far as
1 can. with the help of rny secretary, refreshed my memory as to,what
Hong Kong, etc.lace prior to the sale of the steamers then building in
As you will remember, 1 was a pessimist as to the future of shipping.
and mv one idea was to reduce the liability against the Ministry of
ShippiGg as rapidly as possible. . -
1 was of the.opinion that it was most essential to dispose of the ships
building at Hong Kong, and 1 had cables sent to Our agents who were
responsible for the building and completion, and they cabled back dates
which they considered quite safe, and it was on this information that
1 was enabled to put forward a proposition to you.
The Eastern freight market at that time being very high, 1 came
to the conclusion, and laid my deductions before yourself and the
Committee of the Ministry of Shipping, that, provided these ships could
be delivered at the times stated by Ouragents on behalf of the builders,
they were worth, with their position, oujng to the freight they could
earn, another ~5oo.000,and this 1added to what 1 considered an outside
price for the ships. It wasonly by thisargument that 1 induced Ambatielos AXXEXES AU AIÉIOIRE HELLÉSIQUE (F) 33

to purchase the ships. This figure worked out at L36 per ton D.W. for
8,000 tonners and over £40 per ton for 5,000 tonners.
The Ministry of Shipping got a very large sum of money on accouut,
and in addition were relieved of the expense of sending officers and
engineers out to Hong Kong.
1 think 1 am right in saying that, in the case of al1ships building and
caseofthe "N" boats building at Chepstow,which weresoldand purchased
by Farina on behalf of the Italian Government at L29 per ton, consider-
able difficulty arose over the late delivery. These boats were disposed
of atthe same time as those to Ambatielos, and full particulars as to
delivery was obtained by hfr. Farina from the Shipbuilding Co. Had
these boats not been sold at that time to hfr. Ambatielos, 1 doubt very
much ifthe vessels would have realized an average of £25 per ton,
owing to the break in the Eastern freight market, and the dislike to
foreign-built ships.
Just prior to the sale of these Hong Kong ships, the contract with
Lord Inchape amounting to about ~14,000,ooohad heen entered into
on the basis ofl25 per ton less depreciation and overhaul, which meant
a net of about L21 per ton, and the ships building in Canada were
caucelled or taken over by the builders al a heavy loss to the Ministry.
so that 1 considered the sale to Ambatielos, on the information given
me as to the delivery by our own people, an extremely advantageous
one.
Yours sincerely,
(Signed) BRYANLAING.

Striclly priuate and co~~fidenlial.
II, Bothwell Street, Glasgow.
Dear Major Laing,
Thauks for your letter.
1 amved home on Thursday after a.very good holiday, and feel much
the better for it.
Your letter reached me on Friday.
1 will probably be in London next week, and will therefore not take
up auy details meantime.
With kind remembrances.
Yours siucerely,
(Signed) J. MACLAY.

COXTRAT .~UTHENTIQ UYNALLAGMATIQUE ENTRE
hl. AMBATIELOS ET LE CONTR~LEUR DE LA MARINE
MARCHANDE

THIS INDENTURE made the fourth day of November one thousand
nine hundred and twenty BETWEEN NICHOLAS EUSTACE AMUATIEI.OS,34 ANNEXES .IU MÉMOIRE HELLENIQUE (F)
of Argostoli, Cephalonia, in the Kingdom of G~eece,but temporarily
residing at 56, rue de Varenne, Paris, in the Repuhlic of France,
Shipomer (hereinafter called the Illortgagor, which expression shall
include his executors, administrators and assigns where thecontext so
admits) of the one part and HIS MAJESTY THE KING,represented'by.
the Shipping Controller (who and whose successor or successors in
office are hereinafter called the Controller) of the other part.
WHEREAS the Mortgagor is,the owner of ~oo/~oothshares of and in
al1the steamships or vessels more particularly described in the Schedule
hereto.
AND WHEREAS the said vessels are sailing under Greek flag but
have not been registered yet at their declared port of registry.
AND WHEREAS the said declared port of registry is the port of

Argostoli, Cephalonia, in the aforesaid Kingdom of Greece.
AND WHEREAS the Mortgagor has by a mortgage in the statutory
fom (hereinafter called "the statutory mortgage") bearing even date
herewith transferred roo/~ooth shares of and in the stearnship (herein-
after called "the said steamship") to the Controller to secure an account
current with the Controller and al1 and every sum or sums of money.
now due or which shall from time to time hereafter hecome due to
the said Controller for the payment of the balance of the purchase
price of the steamship Keramies and the steamship Yannis (being
two of the steamers mentioned in the Schedule hereto) and of the
steamers Stathis and Mellon which said steamers have been $urchased
by the Mortgagor from the Controller of Shipping and of every sum
now due or hereafter to become due from the Mortgagor to the
Controller on anv account whatsoever whether from the Mortz,,.,
SU~?I) (grirtm rllt'.\Itjrtqa+?r ]c,ii~\vit1:lny urllvr 1.crhuor )~~!rs~lii~
orc.<iiiilriiiiv,orfrniiy tïiriiii\vliic1l.clor~<~igur niIV bc intt:rv,tç~l
or any-other snm which may be owing on accoün? under or by virtue.
of the tenns of this indenture (but not exceeding in the aggregate the
sum of £~;ooo,ooo) or any part thereof that may at any time be owing
with interest thereon at the rate hereinafter provided.
AND WHEREAS by way of further secnrity the Mortgagor has agreed
to execute these presents and concurrently therewith statutory mortgage
and deeds of covenants in the same form as the statutory mortgage
and these presents in respect of. al1 the other vessels named in the
Schedule hereto (which said statutory mortgage and deeds of covenants
are hereafter together sometimes referred to as the "Concurrent
Mortgages").
NOW THIS INDENTURE WlTNESSETH that in pursuance of the said
agreement and for the consideration aforesaid the Mortgagor hereby
covenants and agrees with the Controller as follows :
1. Al1 and every sum or sums of money which are now or which
shd from time to time hereafter become due or owing to the Controller
from the Mortgagor on any account whatsoever whether from him
solely or jointly with any other person or perçons, Company or finns
for notes or bills discounted or paid or other loans, credits or advances
made to the Mortgagor or for his accommodation or at hi request
whether solely or jointly as aforesaid or for any money for which he
mav be liable as snretv or for which the Coiitroller mav have become
li:iL:iisiiretv or gu;irinrufa Iiiniinînyotlivr\r,:i!.\vhaisoc\rugettizr
vit 1 irilcrrst. curiiinissiuiis, discounts .ind al1 orlier proper Izgol ANNEXES AU 116h<01~E HEI.L~NIQUE (F) 35

charges. to be repayablc in the maniier hereinafter mentioned together
with interest at tlie rate of2 per cewtper annum above the Bank rate
from time to time ruling, such interest being calculated frorn ,the
1st day of August 1920 and shall be payable half-yearly on the first
day of Febrararyand on the first day of Augzrsl of eachyear. In con-
sideration of the graiiting of credit and of the continuing of such
current account the Mortgagor hereby covenants and declares that
at the date of sigiiing of this iudenture and of the statutory mortgage
there are no maritime or other liens, charges or incumbrances on the
said steamships and tliat he has full power to mortgage. If the Mort-
gagors shall pay the interest herein before covenanted to be paid
within 14 days after the day on which the same shall faIl due and
shall perform and observe al1 tlie covenants and stipulations .therein
contained and on his part to be perfonned and observed, then the,
Controller will not take any steps wliatsoever for euforcing payment
of the principal sum due to the Controller from the Mortgagor at the
date hereof or aiiy part thereof for a periocl of two years from the
date hereof. All other sums due from the Mortgagor to the Controller
under these presents shall be repayable on demand.
z. The Mortgagor agrees and undertakes to keep the said steam-'
including war risks, nt her full declared value and at least in the .s,
sum of .... by policies, certificates and entries subject to thel
reasortableapproual of the Controller both as to the underwriters and
as to the risk, terlns and edenl of the insurance and also to have the
said steamship fully entered in a Protection and Indemnity Association
approved by the Controller and imrnediately on receipt of same to,
hand such policies and al1 cover notes and other documents relating
to the insurance to the Controller or at the Mortgagor's option a letter
of undertaking by approved insurance brokers to hold the policies
on behalf of and to the order of the Controller, subject to the broker's
lien thereon for unpaid premiums and also to take out any renewds
of the same which may be necessary during the continuance of the
said mortgages and shall effect the said insurances either in the name
of the Controller or in such manner by giving proper notices to the
insurers or undenvriters as sliall create a legal right title and interest
in and a right to sue upon the said policies, cover notes and other
,documents in the Controller.
3. In the event of the hlortgagor failing to efiect or keep in force
during the continuance of the said mortgage and the said insurance or
any of them or to hand over the policies or the said undertaking to the
Controller or failiiig to take any other steps necessary to vest in the
Controller the legal rights, title and interest therein, it shall be lawful
for but not obligatory upon the Controller to effect and keep,in force
policies of insurance or insurances up to the amount aforesaid.
4. In the event of delault by the hlortgagor in effecting any insurance
as hereinbefore provided and in handing over the policies or the said
undertaking as aforesaid and in the event of the Controller in pursuance
of the power hereinbefore contained himself effectingany such insurances,,
then the hlortgagor shall forthwith pay to the Controller in cash on
demand every suin disbursed by him to effect every such policy of
insurance and if any sum so disbursed shall not be paid on demaiid,
the amount thereof shall be added to and Iieldsecured by the statutory36 ANNEXES AU MÉXOIRE HELLÉXIQUE (F)

mortgage and these presents but not so as to make the total amount
secnred thereby exceed the said aggregate sum of ~~.ooo,oooand shall
bear interest at the rate of IO per cent per annum until repaid.
5. If any claim shall arise under any policy however effected, the
Controller shall be entitled if he shall so desire to collect the same from
the underwriters or other parties by whom the same shall be payable
and shall be entitled to apply the same in the repair of any damages
charge and recover from the Mortgagor the usnal broker's commission to
upon the gross amount of al1moneys so collected by him.
6. It is expressly agreed that no provisions in this Indeiiture relating
to the rights or remedies of the Controller'shall in any way restrict or
limit or depnve him of any rights or pririleges he would othenvise be
entitled to in law or equity as Mortgagee or by virtue of the statntory
mortgage, but such provisions in this Indenture shall be interpreted if
necessary in the interests of the ControUer as giving the Controller
extended rights and privileges.
7. The Mortgagor hereby expressly covenants with the Controuer
as follows :
(a) That upon the request from the Controller and subject and
without prejudice ta tlteprouisio?~~f any thenexisting charter-partiesbut
so nevertheless as to strictly comply with the law of Greece, he will
cause the said steamship to proceed to her declared part of registry and
there at his own cost complete al1 necessary formalities in connection
with the registration of the said steamship under Greek flag and also
at his own cost register or cause to be registered the statutory mortgage
and this Indenture in the Mortgage Register at the declared port of
registry and produce to the ControUer a formal certificate from the
port of registry certifying that the mortgage is the first in date anded
prionty and that no other mortgage or charge has been registered prior
to or on the same day or attachment made or sale effected to a third
party.
(b) Not to execute or register any mortgage or charge on the said
steamship on the same day in priority to the statutory mortgage or
further to mortgage the said steamship (except with the consent of the
Controller in writing first had and obtained) or without such consent
seIl or otherwise dispose of the said steamship or any shares therein
nor do or permit any act neglect or defanlt whereby the said steamship
shall or may lose her character as a Greek ship. Provided that the
hlortgagor shall be at liberty to sel1the said steamship on giving q days
notice written to that effect to the Controller, provided the purchase
money is made payable to the Controller and provided that same or the
sum of .... whichever be the larger is paid over to the Controller in
respect of such sale to he applied in reduction of the amount due to
the Controller under the statntory mortgage or these presents and such
sale shall not constitute a breach of this sub-clause.
(c) That durin any voyage the said steamship shall not make any
deviation not al fowed by any policy and/or charter-party and that
nothing shall at any time be done or omitted whereby any insurance
sha(d)bAt al1 times upon the request to give the Coiitroller full inform-
ation regardiiig the said steamship,heremployment, position and engage-to the Controllerby the proceeding clause) of any of the covenants,
conditions or stipulations herein contained or upoii the happening
of any of the events mentioned in paragraph S hereof, the Controller
shall be at liberty to take possession of the said steamship in ;iny
part of the world aiid to trade with her in such trade or trades as hc
may elect and at the current market rates or in bis opinion at suc11
rates as after taking :il1the circumstances coiinected witli thc said
tradine into consideration he mav consider eauivalent to current
markeï rates and to charge a reasonable management fee therefor
(the Controller not being liable for any acts or omissions as manager
ior for the negligence of his servants or agents) or to lay her up zind
in either event for a period or periods as to him may seem expedient,
gi\-ing credit for al1 profits and debiting al1 losses to the Mortgagor
in their net amount and accordingly deducting or adding same from
or to the moneys already owing to the intent that the whole be secured
by the said statutory mortgage. or he may take possession of the
said steamship in the United Kingdoni or elsewhere in any part of
the world and in his discretion sel1her witbout applying to the Court
case of a sale they shall be entitled to charge or payntra£1, per centum
brokerage and al1 other usiial and proper sale charges and expenses
which may be incurred and also to satisfy any liens or claims, maritime
or othenvise, whicli may be proved to be outstanding agaiiist the said
steamship and al1 moneys expended by the Controller and al1 proper
brokerage and outgoings and al1 losses (if any) sustained by him in
or about the proper exercise of aiiy of the powers lierein contained
or vested in him by virtue of the statutory mortgage or otherivise
by operation of law shall be paid to him by the Mortgagor on dernand
and shall be deemed to be secured by the said statutory mortgage.
IO. It is hereby agreed and declared that any iieglect, delay or
forhearance of the Controller to require or enforce payment of any money
bereby secured or any other coveiiants, conditions or stipulations of
this Iridenture and any time which may be given to the Mortgagor shaii
not amount to a waiver of any of the powers vested in the Controller
by virtiie of the statutory mortgage of these presents or by operation
of law and shall not in ariy way whatsoever prejudice or affect the right
of the Controller to afterwardsact strictly in accordance with the powers
conferred upon the Controller by this Indenture.
II. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary hereiii contained, the
statutory mortgage and these preseots shall be construed accordiog to
English law and the Mortgagor agrees that the Controller shall be at
liberty to take an? proceedingsin the Engiish courts to protect or eoforce
the secunty provided by the statutory mortgage or to enforce nny of
the provisions of these presents or to recover payment of any suins
due. For the purpose of any proceedings in the English courts the
busi~iessat the offices at 46, St. Mary Axe in the City of London of Ris
Mr. G. E. Ambatielos, and if such offices shall be closetl tlien at the
office of his solicitors, hlessrs. \Villiam A. Cru&p Son, wliere\rer they
may be situated and the Mortgagor agrees that service of any writ issued
against him by delivering the same to some person at the said office
shall he deemed good service and no objection shall be taken by or on
belialf of the Mortgagor to such service and for the purpose of-aiiy40 AXNEXES AU ~~É~~oIRE HELLÉNIQUE (F)
proceedings the statutory mortgage and these presents shall be construed
and enforced according to English larv. Tlie Mortgagor further agrees
that if the said steamship is at any time in any port or place in England
or Wales the said steamship may be arrested in nny action instituted
in the Probate Divorce and Admiralty Division of the High Court of
Justice to enforce the statutory mortgage or these presents or protect
the security, and no objection shall be taken by or on behalf of the
Mortgagor to set aside or prevent the enforcement of any judgment in
such action on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction. For the

purpose of any such action the Mortgagor hereby agrees that he shall
be deemed to have entered unconditional appearance and consented
to the jurisdiction of the Probate Divorce and Admiralty Division of
the High Court of Justice.
12. The hlortgagor for the purpose of gioing effect to the carrying
out of the vrovisions of this Indenture herebv constitutes and a~noints
the ~ontroiler to be his trne lawful and irrévocable attorney i& him
and in his name toask, demand, receive. sue for and recover al1insurance
freight passage and other moneys of the said steamship which may
become due and owing under the security of the statutory mortgage
and these presents and to do aii such acts and things in the name of
the Mortgagor or otherwise as may be necessary for the dile enforce-
ment of the said security and on receipt of any such moneys to give
proper receipts and discharges for the same and whatever the said
attorney shall do in the premises the Mortgagor hereby ratifies and
confirms.
13. As the amount due to the Controller is from time to time reduced
bv the amounts hereinafter mentioned. the Controller will absolutelv
réleasefrom the statutory mortgage relating thereto and accompanyin~
deed of covenant the steamships hereinafter named, viz.

\Vhen the amount due is reduced by L150,ooo the S.S. Panagis.
,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, a further ~150,000 the
S.S.~Vicolis.
,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ~130,ooo the S.S. Trialos.
,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ~130,000 the S.S. Cephalonia.
,, ,, ,, , ,, ,, ,, ~130,000 the S.SAmbatielos.
a> ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, L85.000 the S.S. Yannis.
, ,, balance is repaid, the S.S. Keramies.

14. The Morteaeor undertakes to vav the reasonable and DroDer
costi, charges a& expenses of the ~onirdler and of his solicitors in and
aboutthe pr. .ration and execution ofthisIndentureandof thestatutory
mortgage.
IN LVITNESS whereof the Mortgagor hath hereunto set his hand and
seal and the Controller has caused the Common Seal to be hereunto
affixed the day and year first above written.

THE SCHEDULE hereinbefore referred to :
Same Former name Dcadweight
S.S.Keramies
S.S. War Coronet 8,250 tons
S.S. Trialos S.S. War Sceptre 8,250 tons
S.S. Nicolis S.S. War Bugler 8,250 tons
S.S.Ambatielos S.S. War Trooper 8,250 tons Name Former name Deaùweight
S.S.Cefihalonia S.S. War Miner 8,250 tons
S.S.Panagis S.S.War Diadem 5,150 tons
S.S.Yannis S.S.War Tiara 5,150 tons

Signed, sealed and delivered by
the said Nicholas Eustace (Signed) N. E. AMBATIELOS.
Ambatielos in the presence of:
......

[Signature of Greek Consul in Pans.]

Annexe G

Newcastle-on-Tyne,
13th Jannary 1922.

CORRESPONDANCE CONCERNANT LA SAISIE
DU "PANAGIS" A NEWCASTLE

The Greek Consul,
Pilgrim Street,
Newcastle-on-Tyne.
Dear Sir,
S.S."Panagis"

The above steamer of which 1 am master was seized by Messrs.Hall
Bros. on the 3rd inst., acting on behalf of Messrs. Glover Bros., of
London.
The British flag was hoisted on the steamer on the 9th inst. after
the Customs authorities had handed over the steamer to Messrs. Hall
Bros.
1 am forced to leave the steamer but do so under protest and here-
with protest against my being paid off, and 1 reserve the right to
claim my own and the owners' interests in this steamer.
Yours faithfully,

(Signed) G. CAMBITZIS.

LÉCATION DE GKÈCE.
51, Upper Brook Street.
London W. I.
17th January 1922.
Xy Lord hfarquess,

hlessrs. N. E. Ambatielos & Co., of 46, St. Mary Axe, London,
inform me that agents of the Board of Trade have hauled down the
Greek flag and hoisted the British flag on the S.S.Panagis lying at
Newcastle-on-Tyne. As 1uiiderstand that no judicial decision had previously been issued
to that effect, shall be obliged if Your Lordsliip will be good.enough
to cause enquiries to be made and to inform me of the result.
1 have the honour to be, etc.
(Signeil) A. Rizo RANGABE.

The Most Honourahle,
The Marquess Curzon of Kedleston,
H.M. Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,etc.

Foi?iricx OFFICE,S.W. I.
Iiebruary 2nd. 1922.
Sir,

the honour to inform you that on investigating it appears that theve
British flag was hoisted on theS.S.Panagis as a result of a misunder-
standing by the local authorities. Instructions have now been given
that the British flag should be removed and the Greeli flag replaced.
1have the honour to be. etc.

For the Secretary of State,
(Signeil) J. P. WATERLOW.
Monsieur A. Rizo Rangabe, etc.

Annexe H
16tli June 1921.

LETTRE DE M. AMBATIELOS
AU SERVICE DE LA MARIXE MARCHANDE

J. OrByrne, Esq.,
Koom 24,
Mercantile Marine Department,
Board of Trade,
St. James Park,
S.\V.I.
Sir,

of which you are no doubt aware, requests me by his letter of 17th inst.
to communicate with you as he was leaving for a fortnight.
No doubt you are acquainted with his letter of 16th June, in which
certain suggestions are put fonvard for settlement of the whole case
outstanding with your good Ministry.
1 regret very much that the basis of negotintions should be altered,
and that suggestions should be made on quite a different basis on
which 1 had not had the opportunity of developing my views. ANNEXES AU MÉMOIRE HELLENIQ (H)E 43

From Sir Ernest Glover's letter of the 30th May, and on his own
figures, a suggestion was put forward that the amount of about&5z,ooo
be paid by me to the Ministry of Shipping in settlement, but without
prejudice to my claim for the delay in delivery of the steamers and
the non-delivery of the two.
In arriving at this figure, only the amount of £40,000 was taken
into consideration for the S.S.Yannis expenses at Hong Kong and
the equipment, outfit, etc., of the nine steamers.
offer in writing to Sir Ernest on the 6th June, which was not accepted
by the Ministry, as they wish now that an offer should be made on
my part in full settlement of everything.
1 understand also my last offer of yesterday, namely, A350,ooo to
be taken as a basis due to the Ministry, from which amount to be
deducted any sums awarded me for the delay of the steamers or in
excess of the A40,ooo taken as basis for equipment, outfit, etc., and
S.S.Yannis from the £350,000, and any balance to be paid in a way
to be arranged to the satisfaction of the Miuistry of Shipping, or
~200,000 by me. relinquishing al1 claims, except delay of the nine
steamers, have neither been accepted.
It is very difficult for me to make an offer on the lines you suggest,
as, if1base myself on the letter of Sir Ernest Glover of the 30th May,
by which we arnved at the sum of L350,ooo without prejudice to
delay, non-delivery of the steamers, etc., as payable to the Ministry
of Shipping, decidedly the question of delay and non-delivery of the
steamers have caused me much more loss than ~350,000.
1 therefore offer,vou--<o.ooo bv six months' bill puaranteed to vour
satisfaction .................. ,E5o,ooa
the balance of the S.S.Yannis to be released to vour order,
about .................. £39,000
Claims and premiums recoverable from undenvriters, over . £30,000
Making a total of about ,EIZO,OOO

in full settlement of al1 claims and counter-claims, and the eight
steamers to be delivered to me, free ofl1mortgages and encumbrances,
and S.S.Mellon and S.S.Stathis free from al1debts to the date of delivery.
Naturally, permission should he given to me for these two steamers,
as well as for any others that may be necessary, to be out under foreign
flag at any time reqnired, as per my letter of the 6th June.
1 should like to mention that since negotiations for a settlement
have begun, apart from the original delay occasioned to the steamers,
that most of the steamers have been on the point of starting to trade
at good profits, and through steps of the Ministry of Shipping they
have been prevented from doing so, which means a considerable loss
to me, as, had al1 the steamers started as 1intended them to do with
the S.S.Cefihalonza,1 reckou a minimum profit of about &~o,oooper
steamer. Of course, in my above offer 1 reliuquish al1 claims in this
reAsec1. telephoned this morning, requesting that an appointment
should be made for me to see the Shipping Controller,1 await to hear
the earliest tjme it will be convenient for this appointment to be made.

(Signed) N. E. AMBATIELOS.

4 Annexe I

LETTRE DE M. AMBATIELOS
AU SERVICE DE LA MARINE MARCHANDE
CONCERNANT LA NOMINATION D'UN ARBITRE

St. Michael's Rectory, Comhill, E.C.

Su, 24th June 1921.
\Ve have been instructed by Our client, Mr. N. E. Ambatielos, to
communicate with you with regard to the disputes which have arisen
between him and your Department under bis contract with the Shipping
Controlier of the 17th July 1919, and the supplemental agreement
aftenvards made by him with Major Laing on hehalf of the Controller,
in Paris,as to the dates of delivery of the nine ships which were the
subject of the principal contract. Ive need not here recapitnlate the
negotiations between your Department and Mr. Ambatielos. It suffices
to Say that Mr. Ambatielos holds your Department responsible for their
recent actions in seizingthesteamersfor alleged breach of the provision
of the mortgage which you hold upon them, to secure the account
current between your Department and bim, as he maintains that if
the account were properly taken the unpaid balance of the purchûse
money would be more than wiped out by his counter-claim. He has
made several attempts to arrive at a friendly settlement of his claims,
but it appears from the correspondence which we have seeu that it has.
been found impossible to amve at a settlement. In these circumstances.
he is willing and anxious to have his claim adjudicated upon and to have
the account taken at the earliest possible minute. For that purpose he
instmcts us to cal1 for arbitration upon the matters in dispute under.
clause12 of thecontract.He nominates as his arbitrator Mr. D. C. Leck,
K.C., and hc bcgs thatyou will nominate an arbitrator for your Depart-
meIt will be necessary to have a submission defining the points to be
decided by the arbitrators. On receiving the nomination of your arbi-.
trator, we will prepare and send you the draft of the submission.
It will be very desirable tominimize the damages, on whomsoever,
they may ultimately fall, caused by the detention of the ships, and
Our clients would be wiiling to make any reasonable arrangement for.
the employment of the ships, without prejudice, pending thearbitration,
and for placing the net earnings in medio to be disposed of as the arbi-
trators may direct.
Be kind enough to let us know whether you are prepared to consider.
such an arrangement. If so, we will formulate it in detail for your
consideration.
We are, Sir, etc.
(Signed) PARKER GARRETT & CO.
The Director of Ship Purcbase, 1
Mercantile Marine Department,
Board of Trade, -
St. James Park, S.W.1. ANNEXES AU MÉMOIRE HELLÉNIQUE (j) 45

Annexe J

RÉPONSE DU SERVICE DE LA MARINE MARCHANDE
A M. AMBATIELOS

T/30380/21.

Gentlemen,
Re Mr. N. Ambatielos mithout prejudice.

1 am directed bv the Board of Trade to acknowledee -our letter of
the 24th instant. ,
In reply 1 am to state that the Board is not at al1 clear that any
disputes exist, as alleged in your letter, which fali ta be determined by
arbitration in accordancewith clause rz of the sale contract. If, however,
such disputes do exist, the Boardwill, if need be, deal with these matters
accordingly, and should it be necessary Mr.W. Norman Raeburn, K.C.,
will act as arbitrator on behalf of the Board.
As no doubt vour client has instructed vou. the 'position ofthe Board
is that it has beéncompeiled to take the nécessary&eps to obtain posses-
sion of the vessels in question in accordance with the deed of covenant
and in view of breaches thereof by your client.
Three of the vessels in question are, the Board is informed, under
arrest at the suit of third parties as follo:s
S.S. Panagis at Newcastle
S.S. Trialos at Bremerhaven
S.S. Nicolis at Palermo.
Proceedings are heing cornmenced by the Board forthwith agai~ist
your client to recover the sums due froin him in respect of the vessels
concerned, and in these circumstances you will no doubt wish toconsicler
whether, having regard to the fact that the claim of the Board is for
a very large surn of money in comparison with which any claim by your
client wonld appear to be relatively small, the claim of your client may
not be one which can more suitably be disposed of by counter-claim,
rather than by arbitration.
Meanwhilethe Board wiilbe glad to be informed that you are prepared
to accept service of the proceedings now heing commenced against your
client under the deed of covenant.

(Signed) W. P. HOLFORD,
For Solicitor Board of Trade. Annexe K

JUGEMENT DE LA DIVISION DE VAMIRAUTG
DU Ij JANVIER 1923

[Non reproduit'.]

Annexe L

ARRET DE LA COUR D'APPEL DU 5 MARS 1923

[Non reproduit'.]

A~tftexilf

DÉCLARATION SOUS SERMENT DE M. EVANS, CHEF DE
SERVICE ADJOINT DU SERVICE DE L'AVOUÉ (SOLICITOR)
DU TRÉSOR

Folio 653.
1921 B. NO. 5531.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGHCOURT OF JUSTICE
PROBATE DIVORCE AND ADMIRALTD YIVISIOX
(ADMIRALTY)
Between: THE OWNERS OF THE STEAMSHI"P AMBATIELOS"
APPELLANTS (DEFENDANTS)

and
THE BOARD OF TRADE Oh' BEHALF OF HIS ~~AJESTY
RESPONDENTS (PLAINTIFES)

1, CORRISWILLIA~E ! VANSmake oath and say as follows :
1. 1am an Assistant Chief Clerk in the Department of the Treasury
Solicitor (Law Courts Branch) and have the conduct of the action
on behalf of the Plaintiffs, the Board of Trade.
z. 1 have read what purports to he copies of affidavits sworn in .
this action by Frederick Paul Dwight Gaspar on the 20th day of
February 1923, and by Nicholas Eustace Ambatielos on the z3rd day
of February 1923.
3. The writ in this action was issued on the zrst day of October
1921 and after the Defendant had allowedudgment to go by default
through non-appearance, he subsequently obtained an order dated

'ExtraitduuLloyd's List Law Reporlr, vol.man 1923.pp.389-390. ANNEXES AU MÉMOIRE HELLENIQUE (N) 47

December zznd, 1gz1, giving him leave to enter an appearance and
to defend. In his defence, which was delivered on the 19th day of
January 1922, the Defendant referred to certain letters dated the
2nd May 1921 and the 11th May 1921, exchanged between himself
and a Major Bryan Laing, which confirmed, it was alleged, the verbal
agreement which the Defendant was seeking to set up and referred
to in paragraph 3 of the affidavit of Frederick Paul Dwight Gaspar.
Copies of the said letters of the 2nd May 1921 and the 11th May ~ipr
are now produced to me and marked "C.W.E. Iand 2" and are exhibited
thereto.
4. The said Major Laing was at one time an official of the Ministry
of Shipping, but ceased to serve in the said Ministry on the 30th Sep-
tember 1920.
5. The letter of the 12th July xgzz referred to in the affidavits of
Frederick Paul Dwight Gaspar and Nicholas Eustace Ambatielos
was written by Lord Maclay (then Sir Joseph Maclay) on the suggestion
of my Department to assist it in the preparation of the case, the
evidence in which was then being collected. Although there was no
order for discovery, the Board of Trade disclosed and the Appellants
had copies of al1relevant documents except those which were hrought
into existence and for the purpose and conduct of the action.
Mr. Justice Hill which lasted eight days and saw Major Bryan Lainge
in court from time to time, but 1 am unaware whether he was sub-
pŒnaed by the Appellants.

SWORNat the Royal Courts of
Justice, Strand, London,
this 1st day of March 1923,
before me, F. HULLAH,First Clerk 'ORRIS W. EYANs.
in the filing and record
Department, Central Office.

Annexe N

TRAITÉ DE COMMERCE ET DE NAVIGATION ENTRE
SA MAJESTÉ BRITANNIQUE ET LE ROI DES HELL~NES

Signé à Athènesen anglais et en grec,le IO novembre1886.
(Ratifications échangéesà Athhnes, le 21 avril 1887.)

[Texte anglais.]
Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Bntain and
Ireland, Empress of India, and His Majesty the King of the Hellenes,
being desirous to extend and facilitate the relations ofcommercebetween
their respective subjects and dominions, have determined to concliide
a new treaty with this object, and they have appointecl their respective
Plenipotentiaries, that is to sa:
Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland, Empress of India, Sir Horace Rumbold, a Earonet of GreatMichael and Saint George, and Her Envoy Extraordinary and Ministert
Plenipotentiary to His llajesty the King of the Heilenes ;
And His Majesty the King of the Hellenes, M. Stephen Dragoumi,
Minister for Foreign Affairs ;
\no, after having communicated to each other their respective full
powers, found in good and due form, have agreed upon the following
articles:

Article 1
There shall be between the dominions and oss sessionsof the two
High Contracting Parties reciprocal freedom ofCommerce and naviga-
tion. The subiects of each of the two parties shall have libertv freelv
to come, with.their ships and cargoes, io al1places, ports and Avers in
the dominions and possessions of the other to which native subjects
generally are or nias he permitted to comc. and ilinllciijoy respcctlvely
the sanie nghts, pnvileges. liberties. fit\,uiirs.iminuiiiniiilexemptions
in matters of commerce and n;iii:ation \\.tiich are or ma\, be cnloysd
by native subjects without having to pas any tax or impost gieater
than those paid by the same, and they shall be subject to the laws
and regulations in force.
Article II

No other or higher duties shall be imposed on the iinportation into
the dominions and possessions of Her Britannic Majesty of any article,
Majesty the King of the Hellenes, from whatever place arriving, and
no other or higher duties shall be imposed on the importation into the
dominions and possessions of His Majesty the King of the Hellenes of
any article, the produce or manufacture of Her Britannic Majesty's
dominions and possessions. from whatever dace arrivine. than on articles
produced and manufactured in any other foreign country ;nor shall any
prohibition be maintained or imposed on the importation of any article,
the produce or manufacture of the dominions and possessions.of either
of the Contracting Parties, into the dominions and possessions of the
other, from whatever place arriving, which shall not equally extend
to the im~ortation of the like articles beine the uroduce or manufacture
of any othr country. This last provision islot applicable to the sanitary
and other prohibitions occasioned by the necessitv of protectinp the
safety of perçons or of cattle, or of plants useful t6 agricultiire.

Article 111

No other or higher duties or charges shall be imposed in the dominioris
and possessions of either of the Contracting Parties on theexportation
of any article to the dominions and possessions of the other than such
other foreign countryble;onor shall any prohibition be imposed on they
exuortation of anv article from the dominions and uossessions of either
of'the two on trac tarni^s t6 the dominions and possessions of the
other which shall not equally extend to the exportation of the like article
to any other country. . . Article IV

The subjects of each of the Contracting Parties shall enjoy, in the
dominions and possessionsof the other, exemption from al1transit duties,
and a perfect equality of treatment with native subjects in al1 that
relates to warehousing, bounties, facilities, and drawbacks.

Article V

:\II ;irticles \r,liicli.de or m;iy bc 1cg;illyimpurtcd into tlis ports of
rlivdoiiiinionj tiiicposseîsioiij of ller Hritannic \lnje,ty iiiI3ritisli\~cssels
in:iv likc.\visebe imi~orted into tlii,sc imrti iiiHelleiiic \,esizli. \i.iiliout
beiRg liable to any 'other or higher duiies orcharges ofwhatever denomi-
nation than if such articles were imported in British vessels ; and
reciprocally al1 articles which are or may be legally impocted into the
ports of the dominions and possessions of His Majesty the King of the
Hellenes in Hellenic vessels may likewise be importecl into those ports
in British vessels. without beine liable to anv other or hiaher duties or
cli.,ig<s of \vli.itcver deiiomiiini~on tli:iriifi~icli:irticlc.s &rc imported
iiiHellciiic vesscls. Suc11recil>ioc.ilcilii.ility of trc:itiiicnt sltîkc eiicct
\i~itlic>uiisriiit.ii,,n. ivlictlier sii<.li~rticl,.s cciriicdirtctlv froiil tlic ~laîe
of origin or from any other place.
In the same manner, there shall he perfect equality of treatment in
regard to exportation, so that the same export duties shall be paid, and
the same bounties and drawbacks allowed, in the dominions and posses-
sions of either of the Contracting Parties on the exportation of any article
which is or may be legally exported therefrom, whether exportation
shall take place in Hellenic or in British \ressels, and whatever may be
the place of destination, whether a port of either of the Contracting
Parties or of any third Power.

Article VI

No duties of tonnage, harbour, pilotage, lighthouse, quarantine, or
other similar or corresponding duties of whatever nature, or urider
whatever denomination. levied in the name or for the profit of the
Government, public functionaries, private individuals, corporations, or
establishments of any kind, shaU be imposed in the ports of the domin-
ions and possessions of either country which shall not equaUy and
under the same conditions be imposed in the like cases on national
vc~jels in genïral. Siicli ecluality if treïtriierit jhall apply rcciproc:illy
tt> iliércspvctivévesîels, from \iliatever porc or ~il:icetliey iiiny arrive,
nncl \vli.iié\.criii:iy lbctlicir pl:i(:euf dzitiiistioii.

Article VI1

In al1 that regards the coasting trade, the stationing, loading and
or rivers of the dominions and possessions of the two countries, noarbours
privilege shall be granted to national vessels which shall not he equally

Parties being that in these respects also the respective vessels shall beting
treated on the footing of perfect equality.50 ANNEXES AU MEMOIR HELLÉSIQUE (N)

Article VI11
Any ship of war or merchant-vesse1of either of the Contracting Parties
which may be compelled by stress of weather, or by accident, to take
shelter in a port of the other, shall be at liberty to refit therein, to
procure ail necessary stores and ta put ta sea again, nithout paying any
dues other than such as would be payable in a similar case by a national
vessel. In case, however, the master of a merchant-vesse1 should be
under the necessity of disposing ofa part of his merchandise in order
to defray his expenses, he shall be bound to conform ta the regulations
and tariff of the place to which he may have came.
If anyship of war or merchant-vesse1 of one of the Contracting Parties
should run aground or be wrecked upon the coasts of the other, such
shipor vessel, and al1parts thereof,and al1furniture and appurtenances
thereunto, and al1 goods and merchandise saved therefrom, including
any which may have been cast into the sea, or the proceeds thereof if
sold, as well as al1papers found on board such stranded or wrecked ship
or vessel, shall be given up to the owners when claimed by them. If
there are no such owners or their agents on the spot, then the same shall
be delivered to the British or Heiienic Consul-General, Consul, Vice-
Consul, or Consular Agent in whose district the wreck or stranding may
have taken place, upon being claimed by Kimwithin the period fixed by
only the expenses incurred in the preservation of the property. together
with the salvage or other expenses which would have been payable in
the iike case of a wreck of a national vessel.
The goods and merchandise saved from the wreck shall be exempt
from al1 duties of Customs, unless cleared for consumption, in which
case they shall pay the same rate of duty as if they had been imported
in a national vessel.
In the case either of a vesselbeing driven in b stress of weathmn,
aground, or wrecked, the respective Consuls- 2 eneral, Consuls, Vice-
Consuls, and Consular Agents, shall, if the owner or master or other
agent of the owner is not present, or is present and requires it, be
authorized to interpose in order to afford the necessary assistance to
their fellow-countrymen.
Article IX

All vessels which. accordine to British law. are to be deemed British
vessels, and aUvesselswhich,according to ~ellenic law, are ta be deemed
Hellenic vessels. shall for the purposes of this Treaty. be deemed British
and Hellenic vessels respecti<el<

Article A'
The Contracting Parties agree that, in al1 matters relating to
commerce and navigation, any privilege, favour, or immunity whatever
which either Contracting Party has actually granted or may hereafter
grant ta the subjects or citizens of any other State shall be extended
immediately and unconditiondiy to the subjects or citizens of the other
Contracting Party; it being their intention that the tradeand navigation
of each country shall be placed, in al1respects, by the other on the footing
of the most-favoured nation. Article XI
It shall be free to each of the Contracting Parties to appoint Consiils-

General, Consuls, Vice-Consuls, and Consular Agents to reside in the
towns and ports of the dominions and possessions of the other. Such
Consuls-General, Consuls, Vice-Consuls, and Consular Agents, however,
shall not enterupon their functions until after they shall have been
approved and admitted in the usual form by the government to which
they are sent. They shall enjoy all.the faculties, privileges, exemptions
and immunities of every kind which are or shall be granted to Consuls
of the most-favoured nation.

Article XII

The subjects of each of the Contracting Parties who shall conform
themselves to the laws of the country :
1. Shall have full liberty, with their families, to enter, travel or reside
in any part of the dominions or possessions of the Contracting Party.
2. They shall be permitted to hire or possess the houses, manufactories,
warehouses, shops and premises which may be necessary for them.
3. They rnay carry on their commerce either in person or by any
agents they may think fit to employ.
4. They shall not be subject in respect of their perçons or property,
or in respect of passports, nor in respect of their commerce or industry.
to any taxes, whether general or local, or to imposts or obligations of
any kind whatsoever other or greater than those which are or may be
imposed upon native subjects.

Article XII1

The subjects of each of the Contracting Parties in the dominions
and possessions of the other shall he exempted from al1 compulsory
mil.itary service whatever, whether in the army, navy, or national guard
or militia. They shall be equally exempted from al1judicial and municipal
functions whatever other than thoseimposed by the laws relating to
juries, as well as from al1 contributions, whether pecuniary or in kind,
imposed as a compensation for persona1service. and finally from every
species of function or military requisition, as well as from forced loans
and other charges which may be imposed for purposes of war, or as a
result of other extraordinarv circumstances~ ~he~duties and charees
connected with the ownekhG or leasing of lands and other real property
are, hpwever, excepted, as well as al1exactions or military requisitions
to which al1subiects of the countrv mav be liable as owners or lessees
of real propert$

Article XZtV

The subjects of each of the Contracting Parties in the dominions and
possessions of the other shall be at full liberty to exercise civil rights,
and therefore to acquire, possess, and dispose of every description of
property, movable and immovable. They may acquire and transmit
the same to others whether bv ~urchase. sale. donation. exchanee.
iiirirringt.. rritaniciit, succcssioii~.IL~,lr~.sr~,<riilin ;ln!. otlicriii:iiiii;.i-,
uri<lt:rtlic sain< cunditi~iis :isniitionîl ul>jrcri. l'heir Iicirsrii:,ysucci:rJ52 ANNEXES AU MÉMOIRE HELLÉXIQUE (N)

to and take possession of it, either in person or by prociirators. in the
same manner and in the same legal forms as subjects of the country;
and in the case of subjects of either of the Contracting Parties dying
Consuls or Vice-Consuls as far as is consistent with the laws of bothive
countries.
In none of these respectsshall they pay upon the value ofsuch property
any other or higher impost, duty or charge than is payable by subjects
of the country. In every case the subjects of the Contracting Parties
shall be permitted to export their property, or the proceeds thereof
if sold, on the same conditions as subjects of the country.

Article XV
The dwellings, manufactories, warehouses and shops of the subjects
of each of the Contracting Parties in the dominions and possessions of
the other, and al1 premises appertaining thereto destined for purposes
of residence or commerce sliall be respected.
It shall not be allowable to proceed to make a search of, or a domiciliary
visit to, such dwellings and premises, or to examine and inspect books,
papers, or accounts, except under the conditions and with the forrn
prescribed by the laws for subjects of the country.
The subjects of each of the two Contracting Parties in the dominions
and possessions of theother shall have free access to the Courts of Justice
for the prosecution and defence of their rights, without other conditions.
restrictions, or taxes beyond those imposed on native subjects,and shall,
like them, be at liberty to employ, in allcauses, their advocates, attorneys
or agents, from amoiig tlie persons admitted to the exercise of those
professions according to the laws of the country.

Arlicle XVI
~he Consuls-General. Consuls, Vice-Consuls, and Consular Agents
of each of the Contracting Parties, residing in the dominions and posses-
sions of the other, shall receive from the local authorities such assistance
as can by law be given to them for the recovery of deserters from the
vessels of their respective countries.

Article .YITII
The stipulations of the present Treaty shall be applicable, as far as
the laws permit, to al1 the colonies and foreign possessions of Her
Britannic Majesty, excepting to those hereinafter named, that is to Say,
except to :
India,
The Dominion of Canada,
Newfoundland,
The Cape,
New South Wales,
Natal,
Victoria,
,u.ensland,
1asmania,
South Australia.
\\'estern Australia,
New Zealand. ANNEXES AU TEM MOI RELLÉNIQUE (N)
53
Provided always that the stipulations of the present Treaty shall be
made applicable to any of theabove-named coloniesor foreignposses..i'ons
on whose behalf notice to that effect shall have been given by Her
Britannic Majesty's Representative at the Court of Greece to the
Hellenic Minister for Foreign Affairs, within one year from the dai:e of
the exchange of the ratifications of the present Treaty.

Article Xl'III

The present Treaty shall apply to any countries or territories which
mContracting Parties.in a Customs union with one or other of the High

Article A-I.Y
The present Treaty shall come iiito force on the exchange of the rati-
fications, and shall remain in forCe for ten years, and thereafter iintil
the expiration of a year from the day in which one or other of tlie
Contracting Parties shall have repudiated it.
Each of the Contracting Parties reserves, however, the right ofsing
it to terminate iipon 12 months notice being given previously.
It is understood that the Treaty. of Commerce and Navigation
concluded between Great Britain and Greece on the 4th October rS37
is abrogated by the present Treaty.

Article XX

The present Treaty shall he ratified by the two Contracting Parties,
and the ratifications thereof shall be exchanged at Athens as soon as
possible.
In faith whereof the Plenipotentiaries of the Contracting Parties have
signed the present Treaty in duplicate, in the English and Greek
languages, and tliereto affixed their respective seals.
Done in Athens this 10th day of ~ovember, in the year 1886.

[L.S.] HORACEKUMBOLD.
[L.S.] S. DKAGOUMI.

Protocol
At the moment of proceeding this day to the signatiire of the Treaty
of Commerce and Navigation between Great Britain and Greece,the
Plenipotentiaries of the two High Contracting Parties have declared
as follows :
Any controversies which may arise respecting the interpretatiori or
the execution of the present Treaty,r the consequences of any violation
thereof, shall be submitted, when the means of settling them directly
by amicable agreement are exhausted, to the decisiou of Comniissions
of Arbitration, and the result of such arbitration shall be bindirig upon
both Governments.
The members of such Commissionsshall be selected by the two Govern-
ments by common consent, failing which each of the Parties shall
nominate an Arbitrator, or an equal number of Arbitrators, and the
Arbitrators thus appointed shall select an Umpire.54 AXNEXES AU MÉMOIRE HELLENIQU EOET P)
The procedure of the Arbitration shall in each case be determined
by the Contracting Parties, failing which the Commission of Arbitration
shall be itself entitled tormine it beforehand.
The undersigned Plenipotentiariehave agreed that thisProtocoI
shall be submitted to the two High Contracting Parties at the same
time as the Treaty, and that when the Treaty is ratified, the agreements
contained in the Protocol shall also equally be considered as approved,
without the necessity of a further formal ratification.
In faith whereof, the two Plenipotentiaries have signed the present
Protocol, aiid thereto afixed their respective seals.

Done at Athens, this 10th day of November, in the year 1886.
[L.S.] HORACERUMBOLD.

[L.S.] S. DRAGOUMI.

Annexe O

EXTRAIT DU COMPTE-RENDU OFFICIEL DU

5 DÉCEMBRE 1922 (PAGE 33)
Belore Mr. JusticeHill.
Mr. W. Norman Raeburn, Counsel for the Crown :

"The evidence has al1 been given. We have had al1 the evidence.
and 1 should just like to Say now what my submission to S'ourLordship
is now that the evidence is al1 out. My submission is that if there is
one thing clear in this case ahove al1 others it is that no agreement
for fixed dates was ever entered into at al1 by the Ministry."

Annexe P

DÉCLARATION SOUS SERMENT DE hl.GASPAR,
AVOUÉ DE M. AMBATIELOS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGHCOURT OF JUSTICE Folio 653.
PROBATE DIVORCE AND ADMIRALTD YIVISION 1921. B. Xo. 5531.
(ADMIRALTY)
Between:THE OWNERS OF THE STEAMSHIP "AMBATIELOS"
APPELLANTS (DEFENDANTS)

and
THE BOARD OF TRADE ON BEHALF OF HIS ~~IAJESTY
RESPONDENTS (PLAINTIFFS)
1FREDERICK PAULDWIGHT GASPAR m,ake oathand Sayas follow:

I.1 am a member of the firm of William A. Crump & Son, of
27 Leadenhall Street in the City of London, the solicitors for the
defendant in this action, and have had the conduct of this action on
behalf of the defendant. AMEXES AU .\IE~IOIR EELLÉXIQUE (P)
55
2. At the trial of this action before the Honourable .&Ir.Justice
Hill, one of the main questions in issue concerned a contract for the
purchase by the defendant from the Ministry of Shipping of nine
steamships for the sum of ~z.27j.ooo. A copy of the said contract
is now produced to me marked "A" and is exhibited hereto.
3. The said contract was negotiated on behalf of the Ministry by
a Major Bryan 'Laing. The defendant contended that in addition to
the written terms embodied in the said contract it was verbally agreed
by the said Major Laing at the time at which the iaid contract was
entered .into that the said steamships should be delivered to the
defendant on dates certain.
4. Major Laing was not called as a ~vitness by the plaintiffs, but
instead Mr. O'Byrne. who at the time the contract was made held
the position as finance Officer to the Director of Ship Purchase at
the Ministry of Shipping. gave evidence that no dates certain were
agreed. In spite of the fact that ilIr. O'Byme had taken no part in
the negotiations, the Honourable Mr. Justice Hill accepted the evidence
of Mr. O'Byrne and found in favour of the plaintiffs upon this issue.
No other witness was called by the plaintiffs upon this issue.
5. 1 am informed and verily believe that since the trial copies of
certain lettersassing between Lord Maclay (thcn Sir Joseph Maclay)
who was Shipping Controller at the material time and Major Laing
in the month of July ~gzz bave been furnished to the defendant by
Major Laing. These letters concerned primarily the question as to
whether dates certain for delivery of the said steamships had been
agreed and were therefore in my opinion material to the action. The
said letters were not disclosed by the plaintiffs, although the Treasury
Solicitor or his representatives gave repeated assurances that al1letters
material to the action had been disclosed.
6. Before the hearing of this action 1.w~ unaurare that Lord Maclay
was in any way personally concerned with the sale of the said vessels
to the Defendant and until 1 saw copies of the said letters at a date
subsequent to the judgment given in this action on the 15th day of
January 1923 1 was not aware that he was able to give any evidence
upon the matters dealt with in the said letters.
S. In addition to confirming the evidence on behalf of the defendant
on the question of delivery dates, the said letters also confim the
eiidence given by the defendant relating to the increase in price
.charged by the Ministry of Shipping in respect of the said steamships
on account of the high rates of freight prevailing in the Far East where
the ships were being built. The leamed judge did not accept the
evidence given by the defendant at the trial in this regard.
g. hlajor Laingrefused to give me any statement or proof at any
time either before or during the trial.

SWORNat NO. S Whittington Avenue, ,
In the City of London, this 20th day
.of Febmary, 1923. (Signed) F. P. D. GASPAR.
Before me,
.John A. DENNISON,
A Comrnissioner for oaths. Annexe Q

TRAITÉ .DE COMhIERCE ENTRE LE ROYAUME-UNI
ET LA GRÈCE
Signd liI,ondres le 16juillet 1926

Article r

There shall be between the territories of the two Contracting Parties
reciprocal freedom of commerce and navigation.
The subjects or citizens of each of the two Contracting Parties shaii
have liberty freely to come, with their ships and cargoes, to al1 places
and ports in the territories of the other to which subjects or citizens
of that Contracting Party are, or may be, permitted to come. and
shall enjoy the same rights, privileges, liberties, favours, immunities
and exemptions in matters of commerce and navigation as are, or
may be, enjoyed by subjects or citizens of that Contracting Party.

Article z
The subjects or citizens of either of the two Contracting Parties
shail be entitled to enter, travel and reside in the territories of the
other so long as they satisfy and observe the conditions and regulations
applicable to the entry, travelling and residence of al1 foreigners.

Article3

The subjects or citizens of each of the two Contracting Parties in
the territories of the other shall enjoy, in respect of their persons,
their property, rights and interests, and in respect of their commerce,
industry, profession, occupation, or any other matter, in every way
the same treatment and legal protection as the subjects or citizens
of that Party or of the most-favoured foreign country, in as far as
taxes, rates, customs, imposts, fees which are substantially taxes, and
other similar charges are concerned.
Article4

The two Contracting Parties agree that in al1 matters relating to
commerce, navigation and industry and the exercise of professions
or occupations, any privileges, favour or immunity which either of
the two Contracting Parties has actually granted, or may hereafter
grant, to the ships and subjects or citizens of any other foreign country
shall be extended. simultaneously and unconditionally, without request
and without compensation, to the ships and subjects or citizens of
the other, it being their intention that the commerce, navigation and
industry of each of the two Contracting Parties shall be placed in al1
respects on the footing of the most-favoured nation.

Article 5
The subjects of each of the two Contracting-Partjes in the territories
of the other shall be at full liberty to acquire, inherit and possess ASNEXES .4U >IÉ.MOIREHELLENIQUE (Q) 57

every description of property. movable and inimovable, which the
laws of the other Contracting Party permit, or shall permit, the suhjects
or citizens of any other foreign country to possess or acquire. They
. may, under the same conditions. as are, or shall he established with
regard to subjects or citizens of the other Contracting Party, dispose
of the same by sale, exchange, gift, marriage, testament, or in any
other manner, or in the case of movable property acquire the same
by inhentance.
They shall not be subjected in any of the cases nientioned to any
taxes, imposts or charges of whatever deiioiniiiation other or higher
than those which are, or shall be, applicable to subjects or citizens
of the other Contracting Party.
The suhjects or citizens of each of the two Contracting Parties shd
also be permitted, on compliance with the laws of the other Contracting
their goods in general without being subjectedle oastforeigners to other
or higher duties than those to which subjects or citizens of such Party
would he liable under similar circumstances.

Article6
The subjects or citizens of each of the two Contracting Parties in
the territories of the other shall be exempted from al1 compulsory
military service whatsoever, whether in the army, navy, air force,
national giiard or militia. They shall similarly be exempted from aU
judicial, administrative aiid municipal functions whatever, other than
those imposed by the laws relating to juries, as well as from al1contri-
butions. whether pecuniary or in kind, imposed as an equivalent for
personal service, and finally from any miiitary exaction or requisition.
The charges connected with possession by any title of landed property
are, however, excepted, as compulsory bilieting and other special
military exactions or requisitions to which al1 suhjects or citizens of
the other Contracting Party may be liable as owners or occnpiers
of buildings or land.
In so far as either of the two Contracting Parties may levy any
military exaction or requisitions on the subjects or citizens of the
other, it shall accord the same compensation in respect thereof as is
accorded in similar circumstances to its own subjects or citizens.
In the above respects the subjects or citizens of one of the two
Contracting Parties shall not be accorded in the territones of the
other less favourable treatment than that which is, or may be, accorded
to subjects or citizens of the most-favoured country.

Article 7

two Contracting Parties, manimported into the territories of the other,
from whatever place arriving, shall not be subjected to other or higher
duties or charges than those paid on the like articles produced or
manufactured in any other foreign country. Nor shall any prohibition
or restriction be inaintained or imposed on the importation of any
article, produced or manufactured in the territones of either of the
two Contracting Parties, into the territones of the other, from whateverplace arriving, which shall not equally extend to the importation of
the like articles produced or manufactured in any other foreign country.
The only exception to this general rule shall be in the case.of the
sanitary or other prohibitions occasioned by the necessity of securing
the safety of persons, or for the protection of animals and plants
against diseases and pests.

Article 8

Currants, the produce of Greece, shall not on the importation into
Great Britain and Northern Ireland be subject to Customs duty in
excess of two shillings per cwt.
On the other hand, the Greek Government undertake that any
measures involving the retention or purchase of currants with a view
to the protection of growers should leave arailable for export a quantity
to be determined yearly on the basis of the avera e of the three
preceding years' export. plus a margin of 5 per cent or the probable
increase of consumption.
It is understood that this quantity \vil1 be available for export
through the usual commercial channels or CO-operativeorganizations,
without any interference on the part of the Greek Government in the
shThe articles enumerated in the schedule to this treaty, produced
or manufactured in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, shall not on
importation into Greece be subjected to higher duties than those
specified in the schedule.
It is agreed that the additional duties levied by the State for the
benefit of the national,. provincial or municipal ,revenues upo? any
article ~roduced or manufactured in Great Bntain and Northern
Ireland kpon importation into Greece, such as, for example. the control
or municipal duty under Article 5 of the Tariff Law of ~2nd December
1923. the tax for the service of the forced loan of 1932 ; statistical,
orphanage and refugee taxes, shall not exceed in the aggregate the
limit of 7j per cent of the corresponding Customs duty. It is further
agreed that the octroi or municipal duty shall not exceed 30 per cent
of the corresponding Customs duty, and that the tax for the service
of the forced loan of 1922 shall not exceed 39 per cent of the corre-
sponding Customs duty.~
Articles produced or manufactured in Great Britain and Northern
Ireland shall be exempt from the international octroi levied upon
like articles when transported from one township to another.

Article g

Articles produced or manufactured in the territories of either of
the two Contractine Parties. ex~orted to the territories of the other.
çhall uot be subjecced to other Ôr higher duties or charges than those
paid on the like articles esported to any other foreign country. Nor
shall any prohibition or restriction be imposed on the exportation
of any article from the territories of either of the two Contracting
tortthe exportation of the like articles to any other ioreign country. Both Contracting Parties agree to avoid as far as possible in their
trade with each other prohibitions or restrictions on the impo~tatio~i
or exportation of any goods, but in so far as such prohibitions or
restrictions may be enforced they undertake as regards import and
export licences to do everything in their power to ensure :

(a) That the conditions to be fulfilled and the formalities to
be observed in order to obtaiu such licences should be brought
immediately in the clearest and the most definite form to the
no(b)eThat the method of issue of the certificates of licences
should be as simple and stable as possible ;
(c) That the esaminations of applications and the issue of
licences to the applicants should be carried out with the least
possible delay ;
(d) That the system of issuing licences should be such as to
prevent the traffic in licences. IVith this object licences. when
issued to individuals, should state the name of the holder and
should not be capable of being used by any other person.
/el That in the event of the fixine of rations. the formalities
req&red by the importing country shozd not be sich as to prevent
an equitable allocation of the quantities of coods of which the
impo;tation is authorized.

ArticleII

In the event of the Greek Government introduci~ig any system of
exchange control, the conditions under which foreign currency shall
be made available to pay for the import of goods, the produci: or
manufacture of His Britannic Majesty's territories shall not be less
which foreign ciirrency may be made available to pay for importser
the produce or manufacture of any other foreign country.

Article rz

The two Contracting Parties agree to take the most appropriate
measures by their national legislation and administration both to
prevent the arbitrary or unjust application of theirlaxvsand regulations
with regard to Customs and other similar matters, and to ensure redress
by administrative, judicial or arbitral procedure for those who have
been prejudiced by such abuses. The mode of procedure shall be
regulated by the two Contracting Parties in their respective territories.
Article 13

Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 8, al1 goods, the
produce or manufacture of the territories of the one Contracting Party,
shall not, after their importation into the territories of the other
Party, be subjected to a consumption duty or any other interna1 tax
or duty, levied for the benefit of the State, or local authorities or
corporations, other or greater than the duties levied in similar cir-
cumstances on the like goods of national origin, provided that irino
5 Article 17

In al1 that regards the stationing, loading and unloading of vessels
in the ports, docks, roadsteads and harbours of the territories of the
two Contracting Parties, no privilege or facility shall be granted by
either Party to vessels of any other foreign country or to naticinal
from whatsoever place they may arrive and whatever may be theirrty
place of destination.

Article 18

In regard to duties of tonnage, harbour, pilotage, lighthouse, quaran-
levied in the name or for the profit of the Government, public func-

kind, the vessels of each of the two Contracting Parties shall enjoyany
in the ports of the territories of the other treatment at least as favourable
as that accorded to national vessels or the vessels of any other foreign
country. .
Al1 dues and charges levied for the use of maritime ports shall be
duly published before coming into force. The same shall apply to bye-
laws and regulations of the ports. In each maritime port the port
authority shall keep open for inspection by al1 persons concemed a
table of the dues and charges in force as well as a copy of the bye-
laws and regulations.

Article 19
The provisions of this Treaty relating to the mutual concession of
national treatment in matters of navigation do not apply to the
coasting trade, in respect of which the subjects or citizens and vessels
of each of the Contracting Parties shall enjoy most-favoured-nation
treatment in the territories of the other, provided that reciprocity
be assnred.
The vessels of either Contracting Party may, nevertheless, proceed
from one port to another, either for the purpose of landing the wliole
or art of their careoes or Dassenaers brouaht from abroad, or of
takhg on board the \hole O; part 'of their cGgoes or passengers for
a foreign destination.
It is also nnderstood that in the event of the coastine trade of either
Party being exclusively reserved to national vessels, the vessels of
the other Party, if engaged in trade to or from places not within the
limits of the coasting trade so reserved, shall not be prohibited from
the carriage between two ports of tlie territories of the former Party
.of passengers holding through tickets or merchandise consigned on
through bills of lading to or from places not within the above-mentioned
limits, and while engaged in such carriage these vessels and tlieir
passengers and cargoes shall enjoy the full privileges of the Treaty.
Article zo

Any vesse1 of either of the two Contracting Parties which may be
compelled by stress of weather or by accident to take shelter in a port
of the territories of the other, shall be at liberty to refit therein, toprocure al1 the necessary stores and put to sea again without paying
any dues other than such as would be payable in a similar case by a
national vessel. In case, however, the master of a merchant vessel

should be nnder the necessity of disposing of a part of his merchandise in
order to defray his expenses he shall be bound to conform to the regula-
tions and tariffs of the place to whicli he may have come.
If any vessel of one of the tru-OContracting Parties shall run aground
or be wrecked unon the coasts of the territories of the other. sii~h~v~-~~~,- ~~---. --
and al1 parts ihereof and al1 furniture and appurtenances belonging
thereto, and al1~oods and merchandise saved therefrom, includinc anv
which may have been cast into the sea, or the proceeds therefrom, tf

sold, as well as al1 papers found on board such stranded or wrecked
vessel, shall be given up to the owners of such vessel, goods, merchan-
dise. etc.. or to their aeen~,. whe. claimed bv them. If there are no svich ~~ ~
o\rii<.rior .i@:iits (81)tl~t!>l~ot. tli~m 11.é \< iwl, good-, nierc:l~,tiicli?tW, .,
rcft-rri.clIcisliall. iiisu kir tliey ;ire tlir:l~rul~*rtyof n ;iil)jeït in citizcii
oi the ;esoiid t:oiiirnitiiix I'.irtv IIIsi,liosc~li;irii.itll~ \i.icck ,Ir ~ti.~iicIiiic
may have taken place, Üpon being claimed by him within the period:
fixed by the laws of the Contracting Party and such Consular Officer,
owners, or agents, pay only the expenses incurred in the preservation

of the property, together with the salvage or other expenses which would
have been paya.le. in the like case or wreck or strandinp of a na-ional
vessel.
The two Contracting Parties agree, however, tbat merchandise saved
shall not be subjected to the payment of any Customs duty unless
cleared for interna1 consumption.
In case of a vessel being driven in by stress of weather, run aground
or wrecked, the respective Consular Officer shall, if the owner or master

or other agent of the owner is not present or is present and requires it,
be authorized to interpose, in order to afford the necessary assistance
to his fellow countrymen.

Article zr

All vessels which. accordine to British la~v.are to be deemed ~ri~ ~h
vessels, and ail ves&ls which, &ording to ~eilenic law, are to be de&ed
Hellenic vessels shall, for the purpose of this Treaty, be deemed British

and Hellenic vessels respectivëly.-

Article 22

It shall be free to each of the two Contracting Parties to appoint
Consuls-General, Coiisuls, Vice-Consuls and Consular Agents to reside
in the towns and Dorts of the territories of the other to which such
representatives of any other nation may be admitted by the respective
Governments. Such Consuls-General,Consuls, Vice-Consulsand Consular

Agents, however, shall not enter upon their functions until after they
shall have been approved and admitted in the usual form by the Govern-
ment to which they are sent.
The Consular Officersof one of the two Contracting Parties shall enjoy
in the territories of the other the same officialrights and pnvileges and
exemptions, provided reciprocity be granted, as are, or may be, accorded
to similar officersof any other foreign country. ANXEXES AU .\IÉUOIRE HELLÉNIQUE (Q) 63

Article23

In the case of a cleath of a subject or citizen of one of the two Contrac-
ting Parties in the territories ofthe other, leaving kin but without leaving
at the place of his decease any person entitled by the laws of his country
to take charge of ancl administer the estate, thc competent Consular
Officerof the country to which the deceased belonged shail, upon fiilfil-
ment of the necessary formalities, be empowered to take custody of and
administer the estate in the manner and under the limitations prescnbed
by the law of the country in which the property of the deceased is
situated.
It is understood that in d that concerns the administration of the
estates of deceased persons, any nght, privilege, favour or immunity
which either Contracting Party has actually granted, or may hereafter
grant, to the Consular Officers of any other foreign country, shall be
extended immediately and unconditionally to the Consular Officers
of the other Contracting Party.

Article24
The Consular Officers of one of the two Contracting Parties residing
in the territories of the other shall receive from the local authorities
such assistance as can, by law, be given to them for the recorery of
deserters other than subjects or citizens of the latter Contracting
Party from the vessels of the former Contracting Party.

Article 25
The provisions of the present treaty with regard to the gant of
the treatment of the most-favoured nation do not extend to :

(1) adjoininf: State to facilitate traffic for certain frontier districts,
as-a ru& not extending beyond 15 kilometres on cach side of
the frontier, aiid for residents in such districts:
(2) Favobrs wliich Greece has granted, directly or indirectly, by
virtue of treaties to which His Britannic Majesty is a Party,
concluding the world war, unless those favours have been extended
to a State which has no nght to claim them by reason of such
treaties.

Article 26
The subjects or citizens of each of the two Contracting Parties
sliall have in the terntories of the other the same rights as subjects
or citizens of that Contracting Party in regard to patents for inventions.
trade marks and designs, and copyright in literary and artistic ivorks,
upon fulfilment of thc formalities prescribed by law.

Article 27

Each of the two Contracting Parties agrees to provide suitable civil
remedies, and in case of fraud, suitable penal remedies, in respect of
the use of urords, devises or descriptions or any other indications
which state or manifestly suggest that the goods, in connection with64 ANNEXES AU XES~OIRB HELLÉNIQUE (Q)
which they are used, have been produced or manufactured in the
temtories of the other Party, if such statement or suggestion be false.
Proceedings may be taken in snch cases by any person or Company
aggrieved, and in the case of an injunction or of cnminal proceedings
by or on behalf of any association or person representing the special

indEach of the Contracting Parties undertakes to prohibit the import-
ation into and to rovide measures for the seizure on importation

into the territones Of'that Party of any goods bearing words, devises,
descriptions or other indications, which state or manifestly suggest
that the goods have been produced or manufactured in the territones
of the other Party, if such statement or suggestion be false.
It is understood that the provisions of this article do not impose
any obligation to seize goods in transit.
In respect of goods which are imported into, or to which a mark
or description has been applied uithin, the territories of one of the
two Contracting Parties, the competent authorities of that Party
shaii decide what descriptions, on account of their genenc character,
do not fall within the provision of this article.

Article 28

The two Contracting Parties agree in their relations with each other
to give effect io the provisions of :
(1) The conventions and statutes conclnded at Rarcelona in 1921
respecting freedom of transit and navigable watenvays of inter-
national concern.
(2) The conventions and statntes concluded at Geneva in 1923
respecting Customs formalities, maritime ports and railways.
(3) The protocol on arbitration clauses drawn up in Geneva in 1923 ;
whether or not they have ratified these instruments.

Article 29

The two Contracting Parties agree in principle that any dispute
that may arise between them as to the proper interpretation or appli-
cation of any of the provisions of the present Treaty shall, at the
request of either Party, be referred to arbitration.
Th~ ~- - ~ ~~~ ~rbitration to which disontes shall be referred shall
be the Permanent Court of ~nternational justice at The Hague, unless
in any particular case the two Contracting Parties agree otherwise.

Article 30

The stipulations of the present Treaty shall not he applicable to
India, or to any of His hlajesty's self-governing dominions, colonies,
possessions or protectorates, unless notice is given by His Britannic
Alajesty's representatives at Athens of the desire of His Britannic
Majesty that the said stipulations shall apply to any such terntory.

Article 31
The terms of the preceding article relating to India and to His

Rritannic Majesty's self-governirig dominions, colonies. possessions and ANNEXES AU ~~É~IOIRE HELLÉIIIQUE (Q)
65
protectorates shall apply also to any temtory in respect of which a
mandate on behalf of the League of Nations has been accepted by
His Britannic Majesty.

Article 32
The present Treaty shall be ratified and theratifications shall be
exchanged at London as soon as possible. It shail come into force
inimediately upon ratification and shail he binding during three years
from the date of its coming into force.
In case neither of the two Contracting Parties shail have given
notice to the other twelve months before the expiration of the said
period'of three years of its intention to terminate the present Treaty,
it shall remain in force until the expiration of one year from the date
on which either of the two Contracting Parties shall have denounced it.
As regards, however, India or any of His Britannic Majesty's self-
.governing dominions, colonies, possessions, or protectorates or any
territory in respect of which a mandate on behalf of the League of
Nations has been accepted by His Britannic hfajesty, to which the
stipulations of the present Treaty shail have been made applicable
under Articles 30 and 31, either of the two Contracting Parties shall
have the right to terminate it separately at any time on giving twelve
months notice to that effect.
In the event of doubt hereafter as to the proper interpretation of
the English or Greek text, the English text shall be considered
authoritative.
In witness whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed the
present Treaty and have affixed thereto their seals.
Done in duplicate at London in the English and Greek languages
this 16th day of July 1926.

(Signed) AUSTENCHAMBERLAIN
(Signed) D. CACLAMANOS.
(Signed) A. Vou~os.

Diclaration à la fin du Traitéde 1926

"It is well understood that the Treaty of Commerceand Navigation
between Great Britain and Greece of to-day's date does not prejudice
claims on behaif of private persons based on the provisions of the
Anglo-Greek Commercial Treaty of 1886,and that any differenceswhich
may anse between Our two Governments as to the vaiidity of such
arbitrationl,in accordance with eitthe provisiotis of the protocol of
November 10th. 1886, annexed to the said Treaty." Annexe R 1
NOTE DE LA LÉGATION DE GRÈCE A LOXDRES AU

SECRÉTAIRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES DE GRANDE-
BRETAGNE
No. 2335/N3/25. LECATION DE GRÈCE
j~,Upper Brook Street,
London, 1V.x

12 September 1925.
Sir,
1 have the honour to enclose hereuith a memorandum received at
this Legation from theGreek subject, AIrA' . . Ambatielos, on a matter
which has ansen from the purchase by him iii1919 of a number of
merchant steamers which were under course of constmction at Hong
Kong and Shanghai for the British Government.
Although this case has been before the British Law Courts where
judgment was brouglit against Mr. Ambatielos, the enclosed memoran-
dum lays particular stress on certain new facts which have arisen after
that date and which seem to throw a new liglit on the case.
1 should therefore feel deeply indehted to you if you would be good
enough to cause a careful examination of the case by the competent
Department of His Majesty's Government in order that, bearing in
mind the facts mentioned in this memorandum, they might, if possible,
see their way to revise the case with a view to Rlr. N. E. Ambatielos,
who has been subjected to the most senous losses, obtaining some
satisfaction.
1have the honour to he, etc.
(Si-ned~ GEORGES MELAS.

The Right Honourable
Austen Chamberlain, h1.P..
H.31. Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, etc.
Certified true copy.
London, 14th July 1951.
(Signed) G. St. SEFERIADES,

Counsellor.

In July 19x9 hlr. N. E. Ambatielos was negotiatiiig with represent-
atives of the Bntisli hlinistry of Shipping, for the purchase by him of a
number of ships-nine in all-then in the course of construction at
Hong Kong and Shanghai for the British Go\~ernmeot. r\ IIajor Laing
represeoted the Shipping Controller in these negotiations, hlr. X. E.
Ambatielos was reoresented bv his brother Alr. G. Ambatielos. Accord-
the days immediately preceding the signing of a written contract, under-

delivered witliout fail on certain snecific dates aiid later ori hlaior Lainc
visited Mr. N. Ambatielos in pari: and personally assured hi& that the
specific dates of delivery given to 31r. G. Ambatielos in London could ASNESES .4u IIÉXOIRE HELLÉSIQUE (R I) 67

absolutely be relied upon. The price which Mr. G. Ambatielos oflereii on
behalf of his brother was based on tliis plain stipulation, and he was
induced to offerso high a price solely by this consideration. \fThen,how-
ever. oii 17th July 1919. the written contract was executed, it contairied
no specific provisioii for delivery on these dates, but merely reference
to "an agveerltinte" of delivery. The ships (with the exception of two
which were iiot delivered at dl) were delivered late, and the loss of
their use diiring a period when freights were very high involved
Mr. N. E. Ambatielos in a loss of over &~,ooo,ooo.The stipiilated and
the actual dates were as follows: I
Same ol sliip Due date for <lelivery Date actuallydelivered
by builders
Cephalo~~in 31st iiugust, 1919 27th Oct., 19x9
Ambalielos 30th Sept., 1919 15th Dec., 1919
Nicliolns 31st Oct., 1919 19th Dec., 1919
Trinlos 30th Novemb., 1919 3rd March, ~gzci
ICernmies 31st Dcc., 1919 16th May, 1920
Stalhis* 29th Feb., 1920 5th August, 1920
Yan11is 31st January, 1920 1st June, 1920
iî4ello*r ~jtb March, 1920 17th July, 1920

iXole:* These tao ressels mere never clelivered to 111.Ambatielos.
Air. X. E. Ambatielos nevertheless paid to the Shipping Controller
(under protest and reserring his riglits) £1,6oy,zgo on account of the
agreed purcllase price of £z,z7j,ooo. He estimates his loss of profit
resulting from tlieir late delivery at £1,25o,ooo. This sum. if he Iiad
received it, would have enabled him easily to pay the balance. As it
was, he was forced to mortgage the ships to the British Governinent to
secure repayment of that balance. He was unable to repay it. Al1tlie
ships with one exception were seized and sold by His hlajesty's Govern-
ment for ~230,ooo. The net result is that hlr. N. Ambatielos has paid
the British Government £1,6og,2j0 and is not to-day in possessioriof
one of the sliips sold to him ; while the British Government has had
£1,6og,zjo while retaining and realizing forits own benefit theships for
which this large sum was paid. Not only so, but hlr. Ambatielos has
had judgment given against him in the proceedings referred to below
for some £350.000-the balance of the purchase price, etc.The fact that
>Ir. Ambatielos was being subjected towhat can be temed an altogether
exaggerated price for the purchase of the aloresaid ships and that the
competent Shipping Department of H.M. Government realized this fact
isclearly established, when the following is borne in mind. Prior tri the
opening of legal proceedings against hirn for the payment of thc out-
standing balanccof some£800,000 (after theactualpayment of~I,~O~,OOO
itself has made an offer to Mr. Ambatielos to reduce the above outstand-
ing balance to just over ~200,ooo. This of course goes far to prove that
the competent autliorities themselves were convinced of the injustice
done to 3lr. Ambatielos. The Board of Trade, which had succeeded to
the rights of tlie Shipping Controller in October 1921,sued 3lr.N. Ainba-
tielos for the balance due under the contract and hein his defence clairned
to set off inter alia the damage he had sustained by reason of the late
delivery of the ships. The action was heard inthe Admiralty Division65 ANEXES AU J~IÉ.\IOIRE HELLÉNIQUE (R I)

in Norember and December 1922. The Court ruled as a matter of law
that it conld not receive eridence of the oral agreement as to specific ,
dates of.dclivery, that the written contract provided for none, and that
the daim could iiot therefore be sustained. The Court also questioned
the good faith of MI. G. Ambatielos in so far as lie asserted that this
oral agreement was made at all.
However, it appears that Major Laing had Iiaù in July 1922 certain
corresponc1encewith his official supenor, the Shipping Controller. This
correspondence came into the hands of Mr. N. Ambatielos after the
trial. It vindicates hlG. Ambatielos's accuracy. It shows beyond doubt
that that oral agreement was in fact made, that it was only by making
it that hlajor Laing had induced hlr. N. Ambatielos to consent to the
contract price, and that thedoubt cast upon hfr.G. Ambatielos's accuracy
by The letters in question run as follow:

(Afaclay-Lah~g corresponde>iceJuly rgaa.)

The important words in this letter are nnderlined: "IT WAS BY THIS
ARGUMENT THAT I INDUCED AMBATIEI.OS TO PURCHASE THE SHIPS."
The argument that induced him to pay a price which was, according
to hlajor Laing. 50 % higher than that of similar contemporary sales,
was clearly a definite guarantee on the part of Major Laing that tliey
should be punctually delivered. A business man would hardly pay an
punctrial delivery. The effect of the correspondence is that Sir J. hlaclay
is asking : "Surely you did not guarantee dates", and Major Laing is
replying : "Yes. 1 did, it is not an unusual thing for the Department to
do-witness Lord Inchcape's ,61~,ooo,ooo agreement, and it turned out
an extremely advantageous sale."
This letter was not disclosed. the Crown beina in this case the la in-
tiff. and havine made use of the Crown'sureroearive to refuse disc8verv.
hlr.S. Ambatklos applied to the Court of al for leave to adduce the
new evidence which Iiad thus come to liaht, but under the Enalish law
of procedure \vas not permitted to do &. The cvidence thus ëxcluded
would have afforded hlr. Ambatielos every prospect of success in an
appeal. Having regard to its exclusion, he could not hope to succeed,
and he did not feel justified in incurring the expcnse of pursuing the
matter further.
Mr. Ambatielos is thus precluded from legal relief. He cannot, for the
reasons given, appeal with any hope of success. He cannot, as it seems,
bring a new action, for it would be met with a plea of res judicatn. The
nioral title, however, to some substantial redress at the hands of the
British authorities would appear, on the facts outlined above, difficult to
resist. Being a foreigner, unversed in the niceties of English law as to the
construction of written contracts, and English legal procedure, he \vas
therefore at a disadvaiitage. But he knew he was dealing with a depart-
ment of the British Government, and of course relied implicitly on that
Government's well-deserved reputation for fair dealing. In dealing wnth
any othercontracting party, he would he at pains to clothe his agreement
with every technical formality. Such was the attitude of hlr. Ambatielos,
available strongly suggests, the competent department have not onlyation
relied upon a defect in the form of an agreement to disregard its plain .
substance, but Iiaving further relied upon a technical privilege (open to no other litigant) to \rithhold evidcncc \vhich would have cs<nhlis<llie
case uf tlieir opponent. The final ludgmcnt of a Ijritish cniirt. unnppc:ilerl
arrainst. closes tlie traiis:~ctiuii frum a Iezal t~ovit\\.Such û .ur-c-
ment would, in normal circumstances,~be'equally conclusive fro~n a
asDect of this case. In conseauence ofediouthe forecoine considerations.
hl;. Ambatielus 11.the honoir to rcquest the GrccE .\liiisteiii~nn<lni;
thnt lie iiii111good enougli to se.tiis \vay to take up the matter with
His Britannic Biaiestv's Government. wifh a view fo obtainine from
them n reconsideritioi; of the whole case iri the liglit of tlie ricivsiïwatioii
and corisidernhly altcred conditiuns of [lie cûjç sincz tlic new conclusi\~e
evid~.iice.\\.hicIl was escliitled I)efure tlie Cuurts. hns L.uruirtu liulit. He
feelj conlideiit thit in their dccp ;crise of equitv niid jiistice [lis \lûjesty's
Gu\,ernmcnt \r,ilnut Pliilto renlizc tlic cru.iliiii~prejiiclice \i.liiclilie lias
had to sustain through the most unsatisfactorfiisuë given to this.case.

Annexe R z

NOTE DE LA LEGATION DE GRÈCE A LONDRES AU
SECRETAIRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES DE GRANDE-
BRETAGNE

No. 358lL133. LECATIO IE GRÈCE,
51. Upper Brook Street, London, W.I.
7th February 1933.
Sir,
By order of my Government 1 have the honour to bring to your
notice the following communication :
The Greek shipowvner,hl. Nicholas Ambatielos, on the bais of an
Agreement signed on the 17th July 1919 between himself and His
Majesty's Government, represented by the Director of the British
Mercantile Marine, has purchased from them nine steamers, built at
that time at Hong Kong and Shanghai, which should be delivered
to him within the time agreed, against a sum of ~z.375.000, the pur-
chaser having paid immediately g1oo.000.
2. The Purchaser is claiming that the steamers sold to him have
vention, two of them not having been delivered at all. Owing to those
circumstances, the Agreement has been considered as broken and
the Purchaser contends consequently that he has sustained very
important damages. Instead His Majesty's Government maintain that
the breach of the Agreement has been caused by the non-payment
of the agreed amount in time and, in order to recover the amount
convened, they have sold by auction the steamers mortgaged to them,
and, in accounting in the amount claimed the price of the two non-
delivered steamers. have broueht an action ûeainst M. Ambatielos
brforc the Uritisl. Cuurts, I>tltt~;;gft>rtlia clnirii jor tlic \iliolc amoiinr.
Tlicy 1i:ive<ibt;iinr(lin t\vatra <lcci.iiuneiifdrciiig upun tlic ~I,~f<~iiclnrii
the-payment of the balance if the whole amoust, I.e. g300,ooo.
3. Independently of the substance of the contested point, i.e. on
which of the turo parties the responsibility for the breach of the
Agreement lays, the question arising between His Britannic Slajesty'sGovernment and the Hellcnic Government presents itself, from the
point of view of international law, as follows :
The Greek Government, by a note under No. 2355/K(3)/25 of their
Legation in London, addressed to the Foieign Officesince 1925,ascribed
to the dispute an international aspect, giving to it the character of a
question between two Governments. Considering furthermore that they
have the duty to grant protection to one of their citizens, deem it
now necessary to take cognizance of the question and secure the defence
of the interests of the claimant, on the ground of international law,
as that is recognized not only by the Permanent Court of International
Justice and by its decisions Nos. z,13, and 14, but also by His Britannic
of Natioiis of the 30th January 1932, in the question connected with
a claim in respect of certain Finnish vessels used during the war. As
a matter of fact and in connection with the private interests engaged
in the question, the general interest of the Greek State in the case
is obvious, the interests of the Greek XIercantile Rlarine and the general
economy of Greece being involved in it by retroaction.
4. On the other hand it isgenerally agreed that every dispute of
international order must be settled by an international instrument
and the parties in the Agreement of the 17th July 1919, inspired by
this principle, have inserted in it the following clause, setting out a
procedure of arbitration in tlic c'aseof any contest :
Any dispute arising under this Agreement shall be referred
under the urovisions of the Arbitration Act 1884 to the arbitration
of two pe;sons in London, one to be nominafed by the Vendor
and one by the Purchaser and, in the event of their being unable
to agree, io an umpire to be appointed by them, whose decision
shall be final and binding upon both parties hereto.

5. In spite of the great respect always felt for the British courts
and their decisions, it is obvious, moreover, that international justice,
in contests of this kind, responds to more general aspirations and
this principle has been repeatedly confinned by the Permanent Court of
International Justice, particularly by its decision under No. 13, in
the6.uThe Hellenic Government, aware as they are of the sincere
attachment of His Bntannic hlajesty's Government to the principle
of international justice and of their favour to its full development,
is sure that they will appreciate the above-mentioned consideration
and will accept to refer the coiitest between themselves and M.Kicholas
-4mbatielos to arbitration, exercized through the Permaiient Court of
International Justice or tlirough any other international arbitral
tribunal, which should be set out by mutual agreement for the occasion.
1 have the honour to be, etc.
(Signed) D. CACLAMANOS.
The Xight Honourable
Sir John Simon G.C.S.I., K.C.\'.O., N.P.,
H.hI. Principal Secretary of State
for Foreign Affairs, etc.
Certified true copy.
London, 14th July 1951.
(Signed) G. ST. SEFERIADES,
Counsellor. Annexe R 3

NOTE DE LA LÉGATION DE GRÈCE A LOXDRES AU
SECRÉTAIRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES DE GRANDE-
BRETAGNE

No. zo77/L/33. LÉG..TION 11%GIIÈCE.
51, Upper Brook Strect. Londori, \1'.1.
3rd August 1933.
Sir,
1 have the honour to inform you that the note under No. C. 46251
1172119of the 29th May wliich you were good enough to address to
me in reply to my note No. 35S/L/33 of the 7th February, transmitted
to the Ministry of 1:oreign Affairs, has been the subject of careful
consideration by my Government, which has nour instructed me to
present the following remarks on its contents :
2. It is common ground that the present controversy arises out
of the agreement made in July 1919, between His hfajesty's Govem-
ment in the United Kingdom and M. N. E. Ambatielos, a Greek
national. Emphasis is laid in your note upon the lact thot this agreement
was what you describe as an "ordinary commercial contract". In iact,
the agreement was for the supply of ships dcstined for the Greek
Mercantile hfarine. Whether or not the contract was "commercial",
ofamy Government does not appear to have any bearing upon the opinion
questions involved. The contract was one between the Statc ancl a
foreign national, with the result that, according to admitted principles
of international law, the governmeiit of the State incurs a direct
responsibility on breacli of the contract, for which the governinent
of the foreign national therehy injured is entitled to seek redress.
The claim of AI.Ambatielos against H.M. Governmeiit rests pnmarily
upon the ground of breach of contract. The Greek Government has
taken up the case in exercise of its riglits and duty of protection, and
they think that a matter of this kind is to be considered of an inter-
national character.
3. As the Greek Government is uiiable to agree witli the description
of the legal position as set out in the note of May 29th. it seems
necessary to refer inoutliiie to the basic facts out of wliich tprescrit
claim arises :
In the early part of 1919, hl. N. E. Ambatielos, who was living in
Pans, was in negotiation through his brother, M. G. E. Ambatielos,
with the Ministry of Shipping for the purchase of those ships. The
hfinistry were represented throughout the negotiations by hlajor Laing.
Numerous conversations took place between M. G. E. Ambatielos
and llajor Laing, and M. N, E. Ambatielos's case is, and always lias
been, tbat hfajor Laing definitely agreed on behalf of H.lI. Government
that the nine ships were to be delirered on dates certain. \\'ben the
contract was drawn up delivery dates were not inserted but, according
to M. G. E. 'Ambatielos, whose evidence on this point is confirmed
by Mr. William Law, when hl.G. E. Ambatielos drew attention to
this and asked that the delivery dates should be specified in the
contract itself, Major Laing pointed to clause 7 which contains words
~eferring to delivery "within the time agreed" and said that that72 ANNEXES AU MÉMOIRE HELLÉNIQUE (R 3)

referred to the dates verbally agreed upon. The contract was thereupon
signed as it stood.
A large mass of evidence, written and oral, was adduced on one
side and the other at the trial before Mr. Justice Hill for the purpose
of confinning, on the one hand, and disproving, on the other, the
facts stated above. Major Laing was not called as a witness, but another
officia1of the Ministry, Mr.O'Byrne, who was present at the signing
of the contract, but not at the negotiations, gave evidence denying
the whole of what M. Ambatielos's witnesses stated had taken place.
The learned judge believed Mr. O'Byme and disbelieved M. G. E.
Ambatielos and Mr. Law.
tielos the letters that had passed hetween him and Sir J. Maclay,a-
formerly Shipping Controller, in July 1922. These letters show con-
clusively that the case put forward by the Crown at the trial was not
in accordance with the facts, and in the view of the Greek Government
they demonstrate that M. N. E. Ambatielos was right in considering
that delivery dates had been agreed upon as part of theargain between
himself and H.M. Government. It is not desired to elaborate the point
here, but the Greek Government feels that if you will be gond enough
to read the two letters in question, companng the question put to
Major Laing by Sir Joseph Maclay with the reply and further noting
what Major Laing says as to the addition of £5oo,ooo to the price,
and the rest of his explanation, you will reach the same conclusion
as the Greek Government has done.
The observation which it is desired to make upon the foregoing
facts is that, in the Greek Government's opinion, they constitute in
themselves the basis and justification for the present claim. Assuming
that the agreement between H.M. Government and M. Ambatielos is
governed by English law it is impossible to suppose that in the ahove
circumstances that law would not recognize H.M. Government's
obligation to deliver the ships purchased by M. Ambatielos on the
dates fixed, which itis common ground was not done. If English law
did not recognize the obligation (which the Greek Government does
not believe can be the case) the contention would be justified that
English law was, in this respect, so contrary to equity that it could
not be set up as an answer to the Greek Government's claim under
international law.
4. Your note under reply refers to the mle as to exhaustion of local
remedies and suggests that the Greek Government is not entitled to
put forward a claim on behalf of M. Ambatielos on the ground that
the mle has not been complied with in the present instance. The
Greek Government regrets not to be able to agree with this view.
It is obvious that in order that the ments of M. Ambatielos's case
should be effectively adjudicated by the English courts it was essential
that the new evidence which he desired to bring fonvard should be
application to this effect, andthe Greek Government would observebis
in passing that the statement in your note that M. Ambatielos could
have called the further evidence at the heanng before Mr. Justice Hill
if he had seen fit to do so cannot be considered as representing the
actual position. What actually occurred is set out in the affidavits
of M. Ambatielos and his solicitor in support of the application to74 ANNEXES AU IIÉMOIRE HELLÉNIQUE (R 3)
Committee nere entered, but when M. Ambatielos called for these
filesthe privilege of the Crown masclaimed and they were not produced.
It is quite obvious from what precedes that these documents may
have contained vital eiidence in XI. Ambatielos's faiour, and it is
equally plaiii tliat it could not be against the public interest to produce
the particular papers bere in question. Nerertheless, the privilege of
the Crown was set up, and the judge upheld the objection, as he was
bound, according to the understanding of the Greek Government,
to do. Ry this procedure, however, the defendant was placed in a
position of manifest inequality by the action of the Crown itseli.
Itis hoped that the reasoning in the earlier part of this note bas
made it clear that it is not necessary in this case to allege a denial
of justice in the sense of international law, but the Greek Goremmeut
venture to suggest that BI. Ambatielos did not, in fact, have a fair
trial. If, as it is hoped, H.M. Government on reconsideration should
come to the same conclusion, the Greek Goverilment is confident
that on this grouiid alone they would desire to offer redress in the case.
6. The foregoiiig sets out briefly the main lines upon which the
present claim of the Greek Government is being based. There are
further points such as, for esample, the refusa1 of the competent
department of H.M. Goiernment to delirer to 31. Ambatielos the
iI/elLollacd Slathis after he had esecuted a mortgage in favour
of the Crown on his other seven vessels for the espress purpose of
securing, inter alia, the purchase price of those two ships ;and the
incident of the hauling down of the Greek flag on the Panagis, of
which the Greck Governmeiit lias only recently learned the details.
Whilst reserving its opinion and right as regards these and other
matters, the Greek Government does not desire to complicate the
issue by elaborating arguments upon them at the present stage.
7. In conclusion, the Greek Government espresses earnestly the
hope that His Bntannic AIajesty's Government will be good enough
in their well-known respect for equity ta take steps for reconsidenng
the whole case, and if they still entertain doubts as to the soundness
of the Greek Government's claim that they will consent to some
procedure whereby disputed questions can be resolved. In conclusioii
it may be said that the Greek Government is prepared to agree to
any method offering a prospect of obtaining an objective and impartial
decision, and would suggest as a suitable espedient arbitration by a
single jurist, to be agreed upon, well versed in both English and inter-
national law, or some other procedure of a like character, which should
be admitted by His Majesty's Government.
1 havt: t~ ~~onour to be. etc.
(Signed) D. CACLAMANOS.
The Right Honourable
Sir Tohn Simon. G.C.S.I.. l<.V.C.O.. 1I.P..
"H.M. ~riiici~al ~ecrétary of state
for Forei-n Affairs, etc.
Certified true copy.
London, 14th July 1951.

(Signed) G. ST. SI~FERIADES,
Counsellor. Aii~texe R j

NOTE DE LA LÉGATION DE GRÈCE A LONDRES AU
SECRÉTAIRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRAXGÈRES DE GRANDE-
BRETAGXE

XO.IZ~I/L/~~. LÉGATION DE GRÈcI~,
51, ULondon, \V.I.rcet.

30th May 1934.
Sir,
With reference to your note XO.C.IIO~O/II~~/I~of thezSthDecember.
rg33,I have the honour to inform you that 1 have been instructed by my
Government to proceed to the following communication :
The Greek Government have considered the mentioned note which
yon were good enough to address ta me with the most careful attention.
z.My Government whilst noting with regret that His Majesty's
Government in the United Kingdom maintain their refusa1 ta submit
the case of JI. Ambatielos to international arbitration observes that the
British Government does not appear to dispute the interest of the Greek
Government in this matter or the principle that it is entitled under
international Iaw to intervene onbehalf of a national whom it conceives
to~h% suffered an injury hy reason of breach by another government if
a cootract between them. It is said. however. in the ahove note that
any qnestioiis arising in connection with the contract now in queslioii
the competent tribunals in the U.K. Rly Government does not dissentby
from the general proposition that where an agreement is entered into
between a government and a foreigner, the competent tribunals of the
former, be it an arbitral tribunal under an arbitration clause iri the
contract or the ordinary courts, are in the first instance the proper
forum for the adjudication of disputes. This is equally the case whether
the agreement is for a public concession or for the supply of goods, or
for any other purpose, commercial or othenvise. But it is none the less
true, in the opinion of my Government, that the State concerned incurs
a direct responsibility towards the State of the foreigner for a wrongful
breach of the agreement, and if the competent municipal tribunals do
not in fact right tlie wrong because the true facts were either deliberately
or accidentally uithheld from them then the mattcr becomes properly
the subject of an international reclamation. This, in the view of my
Government, is the situation in the present case.
3. The Greek Government agree with the statement in paragraph 3
of the note under reply that the substantial issue is whether by the agree-
ment here in question the Ministry of Shipping had undertaken to deliver
these ships to RI. Ambatielos oii certain fixed dates, but the Greek
Government regret ta be unable to accept the view that the fact that a
final decision upon this question was given by the competent municipal
English court is necessarily conclusive of the issue in the international
field. or that the only gronnd upon which the Greek Government might
be entitled to intervene diplomatically would be that the decision con-
stituted a denial of justice, in the technical sense. The submission of my
Government is that it is also entitled to intervene if upon tlie true facts
as now known it is clear that the Ministry of Shipping did undertake to'
67s ASXEXES AU Z~ÉNOIRE HELLÉSIQUE (R 4)

substance the same as that of the later correspondence, so that the view
that the Court was misled falls to the ground. The Greek Government
is uiiable to agree with your observations on this point, being of opinion
that the two sets of letters are materially different in their terms. The
letters of May 1921 are, at any rate, capable of the meaning that al1
Major Laing did was to give M. Ambatielos assurances as to delivery
dates, although this was certainly not the meaning M. Ambatielos
intended to convey by his enquiry to Major Laing. Writing as a layrnan,
M. Ambatielos used eul~ressionsin the first paragraph of his letter of
May znd, 1921. which lent some colour to the contention that the dates
were not given as a matter of coiitract, although the second paragraph
is more in accordance with his real case. Thus taken together it is, we
repent, at least possible to construe these letters as not inconsistent with
the Crown'scase, but the possible ambiguities disappear in the Maclay-
Laiiig correspondence. There hla'or Laing does not speak of "nssurances"
given to M. Ambatielos, but O) what can only he a definite contract.
At the risk of repetition 1 venture to rcfer once more to what he writes.
It is not merely a question in this instance of what passed between him
and M. Ambatielos. Major Laing describes what he did within the
Alinistry itself. Sir J. Maclay in Iiis letter himself points out that Major
Laing was in constant touch with him and Major Laing says in his
reply that he "laid his deductions" before the Minister and the Com-
mittee that "provided tliese ships could be delivered at the time stated
.... tliey were worth .... another Ljoo,ooon. This can only mecanthat he
put before the hlinister and Committee a contract involving liability in
respect of delivery dates. If al1 Major Laing was doing was to sel1the
ships for a certain price without entering into any binding obligations
with regard to delivery dates what reason was there to justify and
defend his bargain before his superiors ? For that is, it is submitted, the
meaning of this passage. As it is to be truly interpreted Major Laing is
saying, in effect, "1 mauaged to obtain this very high price-L5o0,ooo
more than the ordinary market value-but in return for this advantage
the Ministry has incurred a liability as regards delivery dates."
S. For the foregoing reasons the Greek Government remains con-
vinced that the decision of the Admiralty Court would have been dif-
ferent il the facts referred to in the bfaclay-Laing correspoiidence had
been before the Court, not only hecause my Government considers that
the letters can only have the one meaning which 1have ascribed to them
but also because the judge's outlook on the case would have been dif-
ferent if he had been in possession of these facts. Instead of conceiving
that M. Ambatielos's case was so fantastic as not to be worthv of
crcdericc >O tli;<tli(tliijiitlgc) disbelie\,e(l tlic e\.itlt.11.Ger,,..~1mos
.~\irit~:i~i~~lt~~tlto~~gli1Ii;i11.S. K. :~mt~~.iticlr~i'cinory Ii,iti~~ilv~l
him. he would, my Government feels, have accepted whit they said
with the result of a decision in M. Ambatielos's favour. But as your
note shows that His hfajesty's Government not only attach a different
meanine to this corres~ondence thaii does the Greek Government, but
riiaiiit;i'~itti;tt in trutliirfact tliere\v:hnocontrnct for Iisé(ldelivery
dates. my (;n\.rriimeiit lias thouglit it n<l\.is;il>lçtu swk further con-
firmatioii for tlie vie\ilIiiid formed. lllior 1.aiiig.ti~litis nut <lisi)iitçd
was the person who negotiated the coitract onbelialf of the Miiistry
of Shipping, has therefore been approached and he confirms in every
particular M. Ambatielos's assertions in this matter. Major Laing bas ASNEXES AU MÉNOIKE HELLESIQUE (K 4)
79
firstly informed tlie solicitors advising my Government in London that
during the period from the 1st April, 1919, until the time when he left
the Ministry of Shipping in October, 1920, he was in fact in control
ofthe Ships Purchases and Sales Section of thisinistry. In confirmation
of this hlajor Laing gave them details in connection witli the sale of
ships to Lord Inchcape, Sir T. Koyden, hlr. Robert Dollar and others,
from which it seems clear that Major Laing \vas the person effectively
responsible formaking the terms upon which ships were sold by the
hlinistry. Major Laing has furtherstated that in regard to this particular
case he was able, tlirough being consulted by the Chartering Department
ofthe Ministry of Shipping. to know tlie position of freights in the world
market, and it \vas while he was in this position that lie first made the
acquaintance of AI. G. E. Ambatielos, who approached him on behalf
oMajor Laing offered to sel1to31.Ambatielos uine ships then building to
the order of His hlajesty's Government at Hong Kong and Shanghai
and recommended that M. Ambatielos should purchase these ships
because he (hlajor Laing) knew that at that time the Eastern freight
market was very Iiighand the owner of these ships would be able to make
a very substantial profit provided a free charter-party could be obtairied
(which Major Laiiig arranged iiisteacl of Blue book rates). It was also
advantageous, if the right price could he ohtained, for His Majesty's
Government to sel1 these ships for the reason that it would have been
necessary to send out crews and stores to bring them home and hlajor
Laing estimated that these would have cost at least £~oo,ooo. He there-
fore bargained on behalf of His Majesty's Government with M. G. E.
Ambatielos and later confirmed the matter with his brother M. N. E.
Ambatielos in I'aris for the sale to them of these ships at an average
price of £36.0.0. per ton deadweight. He was able to do this because
he first ascertainecl and arranged that a free charter-party sliould be
given and also caused cablegrams to be sent to His Majesty's represen-
tatives at Hong Kong and Shanghai and asked them to cable definite
dates on which deliveries could be promised, and it was because he was
able to offer tM. Ambatielos firstly the free charter-party and secondly
the positionthen obtaining in the Eastern freight market, which position
\vas made certain by Major Laing being able to offer hirn definite dates
for delivery of the ships, that Rlajor Laing induced hl. G. E. Ambatielos
to conclude the contract dated the 17th July 1919. In his position at
the filinistry of Shipping Major Laing was not able to contract with
M. Ambatielos in such a way as would have bound him (hlAmbatielos)
to share with His Majesty's Government the profit wliich he expected
he would have been able to make owing to this combination of free
charter-party and certain delivery dates. Major Laing estimated that
the profit which M. Ambatielos was likely to make would he about
~~,ooo,oooover and above Blue book rates and Major Laing informed
hl. G. E. Ambatielos that he (MajorLaing) considered that RI.Ambatielos
ought to pay to His &lajesty's Government for the privilege of the
possible by the certain delivery dates, one half of tliat expected profit,
namely £5oo,ooo, and so he (Major Laing) added that amount to the
purchase price of the ships. He was able to assure M. G. E. Ambatielos
from hlessrs David Pinkney & Co., to whom Major Laing telephoned
whilst hl.Ambatielos was at the Ministry of Shipping. that these high60 ANNEXES AU MEMOIRE HELLÉSIQUE (R 4)

freights would be obtainable if the vessels were delivered by the dates
agreed. The Ministry of Shipping's ordinary form of contract was there-
fore prepared providing for the sale to hf. N. E. Ambatielos of the nine
vessels therein mentioned. Prior to this contract being signed on the
17th July 1919, Major Laing had given to M. G. E. Ambatielos a piece
of buff paper on which hlajor Laing had copied the agreed delivery dates
which wcre the saine dates as those which had been cahled to him
(Major Laing) as reliahle dates from Hong Kong and Shanghai. When,
therefore, M. G. E. Ambatielos on the signing of the contract pointed
out to hfajor Laing that in the written contract these specificdates were
not mentioned Major Laing informed bim that if he (M. Ambatielos)
would look at Clause 7 of the contract he would see that delivery would
have to be made within the "time agreed and that those words meant
the dates which hlajor Laing had already given to him and which were
written on the buff slip of paper. In confirmation of the fact that fixed
delivery dates were gireu hlajor Laing States that the telegram dated
which is referred to in the proceedings and in hlr. Justice Hill'sjudgment,
was sent on Sir John Esplen's instructions after a meeting of the Com-
mittee. This telegram reads as follo\vs:

"From Esplen, Shipminder, London.
To Uritannia, Hong Kong.
I'ollowing for Dodwell, War Trooper.
As tlie steamer was sold to buyers for delivery not later than
Novemher it is of utmost importance that she should be completed
by that date stop cable immediately progress of construction.
(Signeci)hl. J. STRAKER."
Major Laing says that this telegram was sent because the Committee
were becoming worried at the continual delay and they foresaw either
cancellation ofthe contract ora claim being made against them. FinaUy,
Xajor Laing has stated that he, on receiving Sir Joseph Maclay's letter
of the 12th July 1922, replied on the 20th of that month explaining
the position as is set out above, namely, that he was able to get
M. Ambatielos to agree to pay anextra ~500,000 because he was able to
arrange for hl. Ambatielos to share the profit which the latter was to
make with the hlinistry of Shipping owing to the higli Eastern freights
which were then ruling and to the fact that guaraiiteed delivery dates
were assured. Major Laing drew attention in this connection to the fact
that Sir Joseph Maclay acknowledged his letter without makiug any
comment on it.
g. The foregoing testimony of hlajor Laing appears to my Govern-
ment to confirm beyond doubt the merits of hl. Ambatielos's claim.
There remains the question : Why did not hl. Ambatielos call hlajor
Laing to give evidence on his behalf at the trial of tlie action ? The
reason is plain. .4lthough, as stated in his affidavit of February 19,
1923. hl. Ambatielos had a conversation with Major Laing before the
trial, it is obvious that the latter did not convey to him what the nature
of his evidence, if called at the trial, would be. Major Laing was
subpŒnaed as a witness by the Crown and, as stated in Mr. Gaspar's
solicitors any statement or1proof at any time, either before or during
the trial. His position was difficult and delicate and the attitude he adopted, which seems to have been a proper one in the circuinstances.
was this : Having been a servant of the Crown he did iiot want to come
forward as a witness against the Crown unless ancl until this was
absolutely necessary in the interests of fair play. He was confident that
the facts being what they were the Court's decision would be in favour
of M. Ambatielos even without his (Laing's) evidence, although having
been subpŒnaed he, no doubt, expected to be called upon to give
evidence. IIrhen. however. the decision was eiven aeainst M.Ambatielos~ ~ ~
he handed the i\laclay-laing correspondën~e to tce latter in order, as
he thouaht. to enable the miscarnage-of instice whicli had taken lace
to be rëmedied.
In these circumstances, it is submitted that hl. Ambatielos and his
legaladvisors (for of course the conduct of his case \vas in their hands)
were justified in not having called Major Laing ils a witness and that
no negligence or blame, legal Ar moral, can be imputed to them for
having acted as they did. It may be that, as a matter of technical legal
procedure, it would have been possible for them to cal1him, but it is
difficult to see what moral justification there can be for the failure to
do so being invoked as a final bar to M.Ambatielos obtainingreparation
for the loss which he has sustained.
IO. Haxing regard to the evidence referred to above, which shows
conclusively, in my Government's opinion, that delivery dates were
part ofthe contract, it may be unnecessary todeal with the points raised
in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the note under discussion. Nevertheless
tliey would observe that there is in reality no inconsistency with
M. Ambatielos's case in his having from time to time made, or causeclto
be made, inquines as to the precise position of the ships or urged that
delivery should be expedited. Every day uras of importance and
M.Ambatielos was desirous of getting delivery in advance, if possible, of
the latest contractual dates. Moreover, it was essential for the purpose
of arranging charters to know precisely the day of delivery. Eren when
delivenes were already in arrear it does not follow that the inevitable
course of a person who. like M. Ambatielos, has contractual rights is
immediately to protest and stand upon those rights. As a matter of fact
in the present case M. G. 13.Ambatielos, who was acting in London for
Iiis brother who was abroad, was a young man rather timid in dealing
with the British Government and who, from his conversation with the
hlinistry of Shipping, was convinced that compensation for delay would
be arranged. This conviction was shown to have been not without foun-
dation as the hlinistry of Shipping did negotiate and make a substantial
offer for settlement through Sir Ernest Glover on AI.N. E. Ambatielos's
arriva1 in London in hlay 1921. hl. G. E. Ambatielos \irasacting contrary
ta his brother's order in not making protestations on the matter before
and was severely dealt with by his brother when hc found out what
had transpired (and as a matter of fact he-M. N. E. Ainbatielos-
was prevented for 18 months from coming to this country by reason
of a tau claim for £250,000 which was ultimately eiitirely withdrawn),
but apart from this the Greek Government does not consider that
adverse conclusions should be drawn from the fact that a party to
a contract adopts a conciliatory attitude and endeavours as far as
possible to minimize the loss resulting from a breach, instead of
immediately asserting and insisting upon his strict legal rights.Sz ASSEXES AU ~ÉZIOIRE HELLÉSIQUE (R 4)

II. \\'ith regard to paragraph 16 of your note it is precisely the
minutes on the officia1files w~itten by officiaisof the Government
departments concerned to which reference was made in parügraph ç
of my note of 3rd August 1933 (No. zo77/Ia/33). It is these fileswhicli it
would seem probable, or at least possible,.contain evidence material
to the issue whether contractual delivery dates were giveii. and my
Govemment, whilst appreciating that it is not the practice in England
to disclose documents of this nature, does not see any reason to modify
the comments upon this point in my note.
rz. Uefore concluding these observations, my Government would
earnestlv reauest His Maiestv's Government once more to consider.
in the light 9f the foregohg Tacts, the substance of this case, leavinp
aside technicalities. The Greek Governmeiit submits that it is clear tliat
M. Ambatielos entered into this contract iipon the express assurances
that the hlinistry of Shipping undcrtobk to deliver the ships oii dates
certain, that this was part of the bargain between the parties and that
he consented to buy the ships at the price named only because this
was so. AI. Ambatielos actually paid to H.M. Govemment L1,609,250
of the purchase price on account, and in addition he expended no less
a sum than ~z60,ooo on estras for bringing the vessels up to Lloyd's
highest class, stores, sendingout crews,etc., not to mention a considerable
sum of money for interest to his bank. But by reason of thc delay in
delivery he was unable to find the balance, and the ships were mortgaged
to and sold by H.M. Governmeiit, the result being that he has lost the
whole of those large sums as well as the profits he would have earned
if the ships tiad been delivered in time. This has meant financial ruin.
H.hl. Government, on the other hand, have had both the money and
the ships, as against which must be set their liability towards the
shi~builders in China. The Greek Government is not aware of the aiiiount
of ihis liability, but the evidence suggests that it \vas materially less
than the sum paid by M:Ambatielos in cash.
The facts beinrr as stated it is imvossible to denv that M. Anibatielos
has suffereda gÏeat injustice. shodd tliere be aiy doubt on the part
of His Majesty's Government as to the accuracy of hfajor Laing's
statements, the Greek Government wouu gladly consent to any appro-
priate steps beingtaken to test them. It appears to besuggested iii passing
in paragraph 14 of your note that the authority of Major Laing might
possibly be challenged, but my Government does not think it iieed
discuss this point in detail here. It seems clear that Major Laing was
in effective control of the purchase and sale of ships for the British
hlinistry of Shipping. Moreover, it appears tliat in fact he reported the
tems of the present contract to the Shipping Controller and the
appropriate committee before it usas concluded. Rut even apart from
this, the Greek Government does not think that H.M. Governrnent
would repudiate responsibility for the acts of an official wlio was
obviously held out as having their autliority to do what he was do in^.,
13. For the reasons which 1 have endeavoured to summarize in tliis
note on behalf of mv Government. in addition to ~ ~ ~~s~ ~ ~ ~in mv
note of August 3rd. CheGreek ~ovérnment regret to be unable to r&ard
asweil founded the conclusion stated in vour note of December 28th.
1933, and venture to urge that H.11. Ghvernment should reconsider

justified in again urging sympathetic consideration of the case by reason ASNEXES AU JIÉAIOIRE HELLÉNIQUE (R 4) 83

of hl. Ambatielos's conduct during the war. In this connection is to
be reminded here the following incident : Very early in 1915 this Greek
citizen bought two steamers, the îunstall (6,500 tons) aiid theA'orth
1~'acif(7,c00 tons) from their English owners, wliereupon the Foreign
Office requested him to allow the vessels to remaiii uiider the British
flag instead of transfernng them to the Greek flag, as he had inteiided
to do. $1.Ambatielos immediately acceded to this request althougli it
in\rolïed rurining the steamers at Blue book rates instead of neiitral
rates of freight and the payment of British taxes, and the two vessels '
result that al. Ambatielos lost the difference betweeii these rates, which
amounted to well over £~,ooo,ooo. No claim or complaint of any kind
has beeii or is made in this respect, but 1 have beeii requested to refer
to the matter as sbowing that M. Ambatielos has made sribstantinl
sacrifice in the Allied cause.
14. In conclusion, 1 have the honour to observe thnt in declaring the
proposal of my Government to be "totally inadmissible" paragraph 19
of your note under reply contains the statement that diplomatic repre-
sentations are barred by the fact that no appeal \vas made from the
decision of Mr. Justice Hill. This amounts to a reaffirmation of what
is stated in paragrapli15 of your note, namely, that M. Ambatielos lias
not exhausted his local remedies. In the opinion of my Government it
has been demonstrated in my previous notes tliat the legal remedies
available to M. Ambatielos in England have in reality been completely
exhausted. If His Majesty's Government still think that this was not
the case and that the claim made on behalf of M.Ambatielos is rendered
inadmissible on this ground, my Government would be prepared to
agree that this preliminary question should be examined separately.
Consequently, 1 have the honour to propose in the name of my Go\rerii-
ment, in case H.M. Government maintain their view that M.Ambatielos
has not exhausted his local remedies, that this question should be
submitted as a preliminary point for decisioii by an arbitral tribunal.
1 have the honour to be, etc.,

(Signed) D. CACLA~IANOS.

The Right Hononrable
Sir H.M. Principal Secretary of State K.C., hl.P.,
for Foreign Afkairs, etc.

Certified tme copy.
London, 14th July ~gjr.
(Siglied) G. ST. SEFERIADES,

Counsellor. Annexe R j

XOTE DE LA LÉGATION DE GRÈCE A LONDRES AU
SECRÉTAIRE DES AFFAIRES ETRANGERE DSE GRANDE-
BRETAGNE

No. 60/L/36. TACATIO NE GRZCE,
51. Upper Brook Street,
London. \\'.I.
2nd January 1936
Sir.
IVith reference to your note Xo. R.6043/3146/19 of the 7th November
1934. 1 have the Iionour to infom you that 1 have been instructed
by my Go\.ernment to proceed to the following communication:
The Greek Goveriiment have considered tlie note which 1 have
previously referred to, and which you were good enough to address
to me, with the most careful attention.
z. In the opinion of my Government the crux of the dispute is.
beyond question, to ascertain whether everythinhas been doiie which
was required by virtue of international law to assure the correct
execiition of thecontract entered into by His hfajesty's Government
and hf. N. E. Ambatielos. In the words of Profcssor Borchard, in his
capacity as Rapporteur of the Plan in connection with the responsibility
established by the Harvard Research Committee of the Haye
Conference for Codification 1930 (p. 168: "it is a rule, which it is
believed has been accepted generally, that the contracts enteredinto
fulfil. \Vith reservations as to the exhaustion of local reniedies it wnll
be responsible for the non-execution towards the foreign State".
This vital question of the non-execution of the contract raises the
question ol determining what tlie exact implication of this contract
was and whether it contained on the part of the British Government
the pledge to deliver at the fixed dates tlie vessels purcliaçed.
On this question of detemining whether the arrangements entered
into bv the British Government and bv hi. N. E. Ambatielos included
the plédgeby the British Government t6 deliver at the dates mentioned,
there is a fundamental disa~reement between the latter and my
Government.
The British Government maintain that the British authonties did
not engage themselves to effectelivery at any fixed dates. The only
obligation which they incurred, according to the British Government,
was to deliver the vessels to the purchaser from the moment these
vessels were put at their disposal by the shipyards alter completion.
The case for the Greek Govemment is that delivery dates were
indicated to M. Ambatielos as dates upon which he could rely and
that these indications as to dates alone induced AI. Ambatielos to
purchase the ships, and that indeed the dates thns mentioned have
not been respected. whence a definite and considerable prejudice has
beIt is an indisputable fact that, before concluding the contract of
July 17, 1919, agents of His Majesty's Government .delivered to
M. G. E. Ambatielos, acting as attorney for his brother, a paper beanng detennined dates for delivery of the vessels, the purchase of which
was under contemplation. This paper was unable to be placed before
the Admiralty Court (before Mr. Justice Hill) but its existence cannot
be doubted, either in July 1919, at which date it was drawn up and
delivered to hl. Ambatielos, or in the spring of 1921. at which time,
paper formed part of theticontract entered into between M. Ambatielos
and the Admiralty. In the opinion of my Government it is this paper
containine the deliverv dates mentioned bv the aeents of the British
~overnment to ~vhich'the formula contained in tl; standard contract
siened bv M. Ambatielos referred namelv "within the time aereed".
1; the &inion of my Government the >xpression "within the time
agreed" did not, as the British Government contends, refer to clause 3
of the standard contract. Clause 3 is concerned exclusively with delays
in payment and in taking possession on the part of the purchaser
and not with the delay in coinpletion of the vessel. The delay in paymeiit
was a fixed mle, general, invariable and capable of taking the form
of a permanent clause in the standard contract. The delay in delivery
was, on the contrary, a variable rule according to circumstances and
conditions of the building ; the delay in delivery was, in addition,
as tlie case ofJI. Ambatielos clearly indicates, of a nature to influence
the price paid by the purchaser to the British Government. It was
tlierefore natural that this delay in completion of the vessels, to which
tlie standard contract referred, should be expressly indicated in another
document, in each case to be placed side by side with the standard
contract. For these reasons my Government would suggest that the
argument put forward by the British Government cannot be deemed
a sound answer to the requirements of the contract. inasmuch as the
terms of the said argument im~lv that the standard formula sufficed
as regards the date; of delive;yUof the vessels purchased. It ~~.ould
contract required a complementary documenttandardto be annexed-to it-a
document of a given form indicating the dates of completion and,
through them, the dates of delivery accordirig to the mechariism
indiccted in clause 3.
3. My Governinent feels that the British Government will not cleny
that these delivery dates were tlie subject of great anxiety to both
~arties. both before and after the conclusion of the contract. and
agree that the letter dated 3rd July 1919, written by hf. ~icholas
Ambatielos, the letter dated 10th July 1919, Xvrittenby M.G. E. Am-
batielos, and the paper written by1\11B, amber, an officerof the Shipping
Ministry, and delivered by hfajor Laing, an officerof the same Ministry,
to M. G. E. Ambatielos, are al1 concerned wviththe dates of delirery.
The question of these dates of .delivery was also dealt with in the
steps taken verbally by hfajor Laing when he approached M.N. E. Ain-
batielos shortly after the signature of the standard contract on July 17,
1919. The question of delivery dates was therefore of sufficient import-
ance for hlajor Laing not to hesitate to make a trip to Paris to formally
reassure M. N. E. Ambatielos in this connectioii. hl.Ambatielos was
at the time detained in Paris due to an operation he had just under-
gone. It is possible that the delivery dates mentioned in these various
documents do not tally absolutely and that a certain margin may
have been accepted by the purchaser in respect of the delivery dates66 ASXEXES AU IIÉJIOIRE HELLÉXIQUE (R j)

meiitioned in the various documents. Nevertheless, it is true that
tliese delivery dates, outside the formula or standard contract for
the purchase of vessels, were the necessary complement to the contract
in question and that it is only in consideration of tliese delivery dates
that the contract was entered into by hl.Ambatielos.
hly Government appreciates that tlie British Government may
perhaps object that the dates mentioned by it and upon which RI.Am-
batielos based his acceptance of the prices asked by the British Govern-
ment, were the probable dates and not the guaranteed dates. This
objection, althougli it appears to have impressed such an eminent
judge of the Admiralty Division as Sir Maurice Hill, cannot in the
opinion of my Government be substantiated if al1 the facts are con-
sidered.
It is, of course, ccrtain that, at the time, the British Government
could not reasonably guarantee within a day and in an absolute and
firm manner the dates of delivery. It is none the less true that when
the British Government, acting through its Ministry of Shipping,
declared to a purchaser that it would effect delivery on certain dates,
the same purchas'erwas obviously to base himself upon the information
given by the British Government. The contract for purchase having
been entered into in consideration of the delivery dates indicated by
the British Government and these dates having been totally disregarded,
carried out under the conditions stipulated for by the parties andn
that its incomplete execution in\.olves the responsibility of the British
Government.
4. My Government feels that His hlajesty's Government is endeav-
ouring to minimize the import of the. obligations contracted in its
name by its agents when it maintained in paragraph 8 of the note
under reply that Major Laing, with whom the matter was negotiated
and who informed the purchaser of the dates of completion, had not
the authority either to conclude definitely or to sign the contracts.
It has, however, not been possible to dispute the iact that purchasers
of vessels from the British Government negotiated their deals with
Major Laing, that he prepared the decisions of the Committee and
that the Committee as a matter of form decided the affair and gave
it its juridical tenor.
With reference to paragrapli 4 of the note under reply, my Govern-
ment much regrets the remarks there made relatiiy to Major Laing's
recent history. In their opinion, whatever hlajor Laing's recent history
may be, there is little in such history to justify the suggestions made
and this cannot in any way jeopardize or cause an adverse conclusion
to be drawn from Laing's statement of facts on the case. There is
nothing new in Laing's affidavit, the statements made therein are
entirely consistent with Major Laing's letter to Sir Joseph hlaclay
of the 20th July 1922, the contents of which were in no way contra-
dicted or denied at the time.
Referrine to aaraeraah IA of vour note. I am instructed to aoint
out that at no <imeïiace buSinesi relations'existed between M. ~kba-
tielos and Major Laing.
5.Mv Government sueeest that the statement of His Maiestv's
GGernkent in paragraphY~r of the note under reply that no trace
can be found in the minutes of the Comrnittee of the Ministry of AS~EXES AU .\IÉMOIRE HELLÉKIQUE (R 5)
87
Shipping of the telegram despatched to the shiphuilders in charge of
the construction of the ships, urging them to enable tlie British Govern-
ment to effect delivery at the agreed dates, does not prove that this
telegram was not sent or that tlic Committee Iiad not decided to send it.
6. Referring to paragraph ~j of your note, the Greek Government
is quite prepared to admit that 31. Nicholas Ambatielos could have
acted in a more useful way to protect his interests by fomally and
energetically protestiug to the British Government as soon as tlie
dates of delivery mentioned to him had not been observed. But the
Greek Government must also record that the attitude adoptecl hy
him can easily be explained. Engaged in several important deals with
the British Government, 31. Ambatielos could hardly adopt an energetic
attitude towards this Government as a result of the non-execution of
the obligations iiicurred towards him ; it would have been very impru-
dent on M. Ambatielos's part not to endeavour to maintain in bis
relations with the British Government an atmosphere favourable to
a general settlement of matters pending. hly Government is therefore
in no way surprised that M. Ambatielos should have considered it
possible to regain his liberty of action only when he became aware
that he could not obtain satisfaction, on a friendly basis, of his
legitimate claims.
The Greek Government must finally again emphasize the conditions
under which hl. Ambatielos entered into the contract for the purcliase
of vessels from the British Government. These conditions completely
excluded any possihility of M. Ambatielos seeirig this matter throiigh,
unless he was able to rely upon these vessels beingdelivered at fised dates.
31.Ambatielos bought ships from the British Government solely
tlirough pressure being brought to bear by the Greek Government
and to satisfy the conditions which were imposed upon him by the
Government of which he was a national. It is contrary to al1 psycho-
logical probability that a man as experienced in questions of shipping
to the British Government of a price greatly superior to the prices
current at the time if he had not been assured of recovering the
considerable sums mentioned by him. That is why he stipulated for
a double condition in his purchase of ships nt such an unusual price
as the figure asked (1) that he would not have to be subject to the
official freighting rates (Blue book rates) and(2)that the ships would
be delivered to him at a time when the market for freights in the Near
East made it possible for Iiim to recorer the abnormal price demanded
of him by the British Government.
My Government must therefore maintain their argument to the
effect that the British Government had undeitaken, both by the
document sent to M. Ambatielos by two officiais of the Shipping
blinistry (Messrs. Laing & Bamber) and by verbal assuran'cesgiven
by the said Major Laing and by other perçons at the hfiiiistry, to
deliver tlie ships at fixed dates and that these dates formed part: of
the purchase contract. It was solely in consideration of these dates
agreed to by the British Government that M. Ambatielos bought
the ships ;the non-delivery of the ships at the dates in question therefore
constitutes an incomplete execution of the contract for which His
Majesty's Government is in the opinion of my Government liable
to make reparation to it. From the documents exchanged between my Government and His
Majesty's Goverliment it is seeii that the'discussion hetween the two
Governments on this point has passed through several stages. It is clear
from the statements coutained in their last note that His Majesty's
Government recognizes that al1the relevant documentsin theupossession
were not in fact produced ta the judge.
In the opinion of my Governinent they have not only the right but
also the obligation to maintain, under the circumstances, their point of
view that certain of the documents not produced and being of essential
character should have been brought to the notice of the judge in order
that the latter might be able to appreciate the importance of theni. It
follows therefore that the responsibility of the British Government is
eto take cognizance of al1of the pertinent documents in tbeir possession
or power.
In the opinion of my Government the Laing-Maclay correspondence
of July 1922is of essential importance. In order to refute this, the British
Government in paragraph 9 of its note of the 7th November 1934relics
on more or less precise conversations between Major Laing and
hlr. O'Byrne in March to April1921, but my Government feels bonnd to
observe that these conversations do not correspond with the contents
of the letters from hlajor Laing in July 1922. The Greek Government
regrets it is unable to adopt these conversations as being accurate. The
result of this would appear to be that the agents of the British Govern-
ment concerned in presenting the matter before the judge based them-
selves on these conversations and did not consider the documents
cuchnngcil iii1922 :is iiiipurtiint ;isgiclidnur hrinç tliern tu tlic noticr
(81tlic jiidgc11).i,i~v~>rnnir.nrti.grcts iriiiust iiiggest th3t jiistici'rt,quircd
llie Britisli Govcriiiiiriii :Incase.:iii<inorc suiii tlic c;<scofJilfcrcnccs
between the conversations aAd thése documents appearing, to provide
the judge witli the means of clearing up the matter by producing the
documents to him. The Greek Governmentmust put on record that this
obligation was not fulfilled. There is therefore, in the opinion of the
Greek Government, a rnatter there which beyond al1 doubt engages
the responsihility of the British Government.
The Maclay-Laing correspondence presents several considerably
interesting features. In the first place it shows that iri the mind of the
Shipping Controller there was a doubt on the point of knowiug whether
the delivery dates had been agreed by contract. The truth regarding
such facts in respect of a point so essential could only be established
if these letters were placed before the Court. In addition the Ministry
of Shipping was able to see from this correspondence that hlajor Laing,
ine the claims of 11. Ambatielos aeainst the British Government. Itrt-
i -iiot,!wt~rtli).untltr tlic.sc circuriist;iiic~~sro retti:ltllnjor Laing.
\vliuc:iri.iedout:iltlic ncgoti;itions on b,:li;~lf01tlic Uritisli Gt,v(:rnmeiit
and was in Court at the trial and who alleges he was subpŒnaed, was
iiot put in the witness box. nor at any time did he appear before the
Court. It is no less noteworthy to stress the fact that hl. Ambatielos,
havine attem~ted to cal1Maior Laine on bis own behalf. found it imi~os-
sible 70 havéhis wish carriéd out; On several occasion; attempts nere
made to serve the subpŒna on him and each of these repeated attempts -
was without success, 3 not being possible to reach Major Laing.go . ASSEXES AU 3lEhl01R~ HELLEXIQU (E5)
In the opinion of my Government the non-productior! of the Laing-
Maclay correspondence in the suit before hlr. Justice Hill is the more
serious in view of the fact tliat neither was Major Laing callecl to give
verbal testimony, because he would undoubtedly have reproduced the
declarations contained in his correspondence with Sir Joseph Maclay.
Sir Joseph hfaclay having written to Major Laing to ask him whether
he had guaranteed delivery dates (12th July 1922). Major Laing replied
to him on the 20th lul",, 1022 to the effect that he had oiilv obtained
tlichigli pricc 18,~iiIl\I. S. t\mh;itielosirconsiilt~rationof 6scd d;itt:s.
Ttic Grcrk i;o\,erninriir rcErerit inusr alsu o11scrvelliatIli*\lacla)'-
Laing correspondence of JUTY1922 is not the only document in the
possession or power of His alajesty's Govemment affecting the suit
that was not brought before the jndge. In this connection it would draw
tlie attention of the British Government to the following considerations.
It is indisputable that Major Laing sent to M. G. 13.Ambatielos in
July 1919 a paper mentioning delivery dates in connection with the
sliips bought and in any case, even in accordance witli the argument
of the British Government, completion dates. These dates written dom
by an official of the Shippiiig hlinistry, Mr. Bamber, could only Iiave
been copieù from some documeiit, either a contract between,the hfinistry
and the shipbuilders, or a telegram received from the shipbuilders or
some other quite different document. It is evident that in the files of
the hlinistry there are some indications capable of sho\\.iiig :
1. The origin of the dates appearing on the document written by
Mr. Bamber.
2. The scope and the binding or approximate nature of these dates.

The Greek Government is obliged to enquire why these documents
were not produced in the suit.
Furthemore, His Majesty's Government in paragrapli 16 of the note
under reply stated that a complaint of this kind could only properly
be made if my Government could show that it was the regular practice
of the Greek Government when engaged in litigation to produce the
minutes written in Government departments, and while not agreeing
with this contention, 1 beg to state that my Government are under
obligation to diçcloseal1relevant documents when engaged in litigation.
In the opinion of my Government it is clear that the British Govern-
ment was not able to invoke. as a reason forthe non-production of these
documents, motives of "public policy" which under certain circum-
stances can absolve the Government from the production of certain
documents. There was no question of "public policy" nt stake. The
the building of merchaiitmen in the shipyards of Asia could have been
harmful to public interests. lt is also certain that it would riot be possible
to consider the mere fact that it was a question of pecuniary interests
of the British nation, sued for dama es, as a motive of "public policy".
The non-production by the British lovernment of the documents that
were capable of throwing complete light on the esseFial point of the
suit therefore engages the responsibility of the British Government.
It is in the opinion of my Government a question of acts, or omissions
that, from the legal point of iriew, constitute acts or omissions of the
executive organ and it is indisputable that the international responsibility
of theState is invoked when an illegal act or omission for which national ANSEXES AU MÉI~OIRI~ HELLENIQU (E5) 91

law has not in fact provided reparation can be imputed to the State
itself in respect of a foreigner.
The Greek Government does not doubt that the British Govemment,
after a further examination of the question, will share this point of view.
This point of view is, as a matter of fact, the one that the British Govern-
ment itself has had occasion to express officially on several occasions
and in particular oii the occasion of the preparatory work of the
Conference for the Codification of International Law held at The Hague
in March-April 1930 (Bases for discussion t. III, C. 75 1\1.69, 1929.V).
Under the heading IV, No. 5, the Preparatory Committee put the
following questions :
"Under what otlier hypotliesis (than those listed under Nos. I
to 4 of the same heading) is it possible to admit the responsibility
of theState whose courts have given an unjust judgment ?"
The British Government replied as follows (p. 49) :

"The responsibility of the State is not engaged simply hy reason
of the fact that a legaldecision is wrong. Nevertheless an erroneous
legal decision can engage the responsihility of the State :
0) If it is erroneous to a point such that no properly constituted
court could honestly have amved at a decision of that kind.
(b) If it is due to corruption.
(c) If it is due to the pressure exercised by the executive organs
of the Governmeiit.
(ci) If it is provoked by a procedure so deficient as to exclude al1
reasonable hope of fair decisions."
It is due to the last hypothesis provided forunder letter "d" that the
facts eiiunciated here must come.
In the opinion of my Government it is certain that the procedure in
the wide sense, that is to Say, the enquiry into the matter as a whole
not only by the judge but also by the British Government as a party to
theactions wasdeficient by the fact of the non-production of fundamental
evidence.
The fault engendering the intematioiial responsibility of the British
Government is not in any way to be attributed to the judge, who could
only make a decision or1the streugth of the evidence that %vas submitted
to him. apart from the risk of erring on the value of tliis evidence, whi!e
however such errors could not constitute a source of responsibility in
respect of the functioning of the judicial organ.
The responsibility of the British Government in this matter is engen-
dered by the action of its officials or agents. Now in this respect Great
Britain, on the occasion of the Conference of Codification, replied as
follows -
The Point V, No. z (a), of the questionnaire, made provision in the
following terms for the act or omission of a cornpetent oficial Idoc.
cit., p. 70):
"1s the responsibility of the State engaged in the following cases
and, in the affirmative, what is the foundation of the obligation ;
(a) Acts or omissions of officials acting wvitliinthe bounds of
their competence.
To what extent must consideration be paid to the fact that
these acts or omissions are either contras. to the international

7 obligations of the State or marked by illegality in accordance with
national law, or characterizedby error ? (Underlining added.)
1s it necessary in order to fix international responsibility of the
State, to take other considerations into account ? Do the same rules
apply to damage done at sea, for example collision imputable to a
warship ?"
It is seen that the case in question comes within the scope of this
hypothesis, particularly under the heading of an act characterized by
error of an executive officia1wlio did not enable the judge to make his
decision with full cognizance of the facts. To the question raised Great
Britain replies as follows (p. 72) :

"The State is responsible from the international point of view
for the acts or the omissions of its officialsacting within the bounds
of their competence. If a foreigner suffersa loss or damage by reason
of acts or omissions of this nature which are contrary to inter-
national ohlieations of the State or to its national leeislature. or
which can beconsidered as negligence resulting from txe said legis-
lature. the State is liable for reparation. If he has access to effica-
cious means of obtaining reparaiion hefore the Courts, these means
must first be exhausted (see reply to point XII).
The same rules apply to losses or damage caused on sea or on
land."
If, moreo\.cr, it13consiricrédthar thc acr of \i.liiclithe Grcïk Cowrn-
ment iicoinl>l:iiniii;iii<\i.liicliit cl;iiiIi;itiig;igi!ctlic i~itr'rii:~rioii;il
responsibility of GréatBritaio was committed by <lieofficia1out of the
bounds of his competency the situation is not changed. The responsibility
of Great Britain would still have to be considered as engaged in tliis
case. That is what results from the reply of the British Government to
the questionnaire of the Preparatory Committee under Point V. Xo. 2b
(vol. mentioned above, p. 76).

The auestion was worded as follows ~.. ,4.,:
"1s the responsibility of the State engaged in the following case
and, in the affirmative, what is the foundation of the obligation:
Acts or omissions of officials :
(b) Acts performed by officials in the national territory and
authorized by the official capacity of the said officials (functional
acts) but out of the bounds of their competence ?"
Great Britain replies as follows :
"The State is also responsible, from the international point of
view, foracts that may be yerformed by its officials.in the national
territory, in their official capacity, but out of the bounds of their
competence." (P. 76.)

My Government's opinion is therefore that they are here right in
expecting that the British Government, discovering the erroneous
attitude of its officialsor agents who did not, owing to the iucomplete
production of documents, enable the judge to make his decision with
full cognizance of tlie case on the facts submitted to hini, will consider
its international responsibility engaged by the fault of the said officials
or agents. ASNEXES AU MÉDIOIRE HELLENIQUE (R 5) 93

The Greek Govemment now turns to the question of the exhaustion of
local means of remedy.
The Greek Government does not cal1 in question, in principle, .the
fact that the practice of diplomatic representations admits, to a certain
extent which will be specified hereunder, the argument brought fonvard
by the British Govemment, that claimants must have exhausted the
local means of remedy in order that their case can be the object of a
diplomatic claim on the part of their Govemment. But the Greek Govern-
ment does dispute the fact that this rule can be applied to the Greek
Government in the present case. As a matter of fact the attitude of
M. Ambatielos has fully com lied with the requirements stipulated by
the rule to which the British l overnment refers.
It must first be detemined what is the scope of the rule and it is not
possible to do better than to refer in this regard tothe opinion fomulated
reiterated on the occasion of the preparatory work of the Conference of
Codification of 1930 (reply to the questionnaire szrbpoint XII Bases,
III p. 137) as expressing its viewpoint on the question raised :

"His Majesty's Government attaches the greatest importance to'
the observation of the following rule : when private individuals
have access to efficacious means of reparation before the courts of
a civilized country thanks to which they are able to obtain satis-
faction to an adequate extent in the case of a violation of their
rights, it is necessary to use the means of remedy thns provided
before diplomatic action is taken." (American Journal of Inter-
national Law, 1916. special supplement, page 139.)

The state of international law, as ievealed by most recent practice
(decision of Mr. Algot Bagge in the dispute regardiiig Finnish ships)
is exactly that described by Great Britain itself in the aforesaid passage.
In order that the rule of local remedies can be invoked, it is necessary
that the means of obtaining redress that have been exhausted should
have been e@caciousmeans and capable of, producing adequate satis-
faction. As is show by varions incidents and in particular by the above-
mentioned decision, the right of lodging an appeal in the form and of
making claims with regard to the right of appeal iri question is not
sufficient to comply with the rule of local remedies. It 1s a certainty
that the remedy mttst be effective and adequate (pp. 15and 16).
\\'batwas the attitude adopted by M. N. E. Ambatielos with regard
to the local remedies ?
Amongst the local remedies placed at the disposal of M. Ambatielos
there are certain foms that he exhausted completely and absolutely in
the stnctest and most fomal sense of the expression, without taking
.~~~ - ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ther these remedies offeredM.Ambatielos a means
<ifobt;iiiiiiig redrrsj rKic;~ciouslyand to:ri1adcquxt~. ehtvnt fur Ii~m
>iiiiered.'flicre ;ire otlirr int::inj ihat lie 11'1isiut cxliaustcd in th<,foriiial
2nd olnious sens< of the word. I>ut iievcrrhc.I~.11. Aiiil>atir.loscdiinot
bëreproached for not having'proceeded to exhaust the said means ;
actually these local means of remedy did not possess the character of
efficaciousness required by intemational law, before the State against
which an international complaint is made can charge a foreign plaiiitiff
with not having complied with what is called the rule of local remedies. 94 AS SEXE^ AU AS S I O ELL ÉEIQUE (R 5)

The local remedies that M. Ambatielos has exhausted completely
are tliose that were accessible to Iiirn with a view to endeavouring to
obtain the production at law of the documents not produced at the
hearing by the British Government, when the existence of these docu-
ments was known to him after the decision of the Admiralty Court had
been given. Having applied tu the Court of Appeal for the production
of the new evidence that hacl come to light, AI.Ambatielos did not
receive permission for this production to be effected. The Coirrt refused
to give authority to this effect because in its opinion hl. Ambatielos
should have produced these documents earlier. The Greek Government
does not wish to discuss whetlier or not such an argument adopted by
the Court ofAppeal isjustified. It would only remark that M.Ambatielos,
not liaving these letters at his disposa1aiid not knowing of their existence
at the time of the hearing before Mr. Justice Hill, was quite unable to
as there was non ameans of appeal against the decrsion of that Court,
AI. Ambatielos has exhausted iii this regard al1 of the possible local
means of remedy and that in consequence no reproach can be made on
this score toM. Ambatielos and no exception can be taken to the attitude
'of the Greek Government.
In the oninion of mv Government M. Ambatielos cannot in addition
bc rt:r,ro:i<.l~t:\(r\i11li-iviic;.rriedtb ir~1:~11~;1ii;it1cal,l,t.;.l 11vdt
litli;,<lludgzil in rr.il>s:tlimniii iisii(ifr1.vsuit<iF.~tiitll,~I~cisinn
of .\Ir. I,istiJlill:\s a ni.~tter of i:ict [lie loi:il rdnicdics coiistitritt~(l
by such a procedure of appeal must of necessity be inefficacious. The
reason for this is that M.Ambatielos, not having received from the Court
of Appeal the authority to introduce at the hearing the new documents
that had come to his cognizance after the first hearing, would have
found tlie Appeal Court judges themselves also deprived, like the judge
of the Court of first instance, of the elements necessary for the formation
of a complete picture of tlie justification for M.Ambatielos's application.
There was no douht a theoretical possibility that the Court of Appeal
might firid differently from the judge of the Court of the first iristance,
but it is certain that this possihility does not extend beyoiid the realms
of mere theory and that therefore it would not be possible to consider
aseffective the legal means that were at the disposa1 of M. Ambatielos
and which he has not completely utilized.
In conclusion 1 have the honour tu observe that, in the opinion of my
Government, II.Ambatielos has fully complied with the requirements
required by tlie rule of local remedies in accordance with international
.practice of the most positive cliaracter and the opinion of His Majesty's
Governmerit itself as reported above.
Thereforeit appears the BritishGovernment should not raise objection
to the claims of the Greek Government in any way whatever on the
grounds of the rnle of local remedies.
In addition the Greek Government has declared itself willing to submit
to judicial or arbitrary procedure as a preliminary basis the question
of whether its national subject had or had not exhausted the local
remedies in Great Britain.
My Government regrets to see that the British Government did not
think fit to accept thisreasonable proposa1made by the Greek Govern-
ment which, in the opinion of the Greek Government, constituted the .+'IXE.YES AU ~IÉJIOIREHELLÉSIQUE (R 5)
95
best means of keeping entirely intact points of view of the two Govem-
ments.
The financial result of thissaleby the British Goverriment toM.N. E.
Ambatielos is that nfter the British Govemment offered to cancel the
saccepted, the British Gàvernment only sold M.N. E. Ambatielos seven was
vessels at a pro ratil contract price of . . . . . . . ~1,606,000
against this the hlinistry of Shipping received :

In cash £1,650,000
Proceeds sale of 6 vessels
(7th sold previously) 230,000
Value of bunkers and
stores (supplied and
paid for by Ambatielos
in Oct. 1920) on board
the :Wellot~and Slnthis 17.000
hfaking a total of £1,897,000

Excess received by the Ministry of Shipping
over and above contract price . . . . . . . . . £gr,ooo

The anomaly that the British Govemment received more than the
contract price is explained by the fact that the British Government
paid certain sums for insurance and other expenses on the vessels while
they were lying idle, but none of these expenses would have been incurred
be idle. On the contrary they could have been traded at good profits.
In addition the 7 vessels sold to hl. Ambatielos by the Ministry of
Shipping for Lr,So6,oo*and for which thehlinistry received£1,897,ooo
-were offered by the Ministry, just prior to tlie sale to M.Ambatielos,
to British buyers for &1,39o,ooo (pro rata for the nine vessels
at £I,~~~,OOO)I .t will be seeii that the Ministry of Shipping received
for the 7 vessels &507,00o more from M. Ambatielos than that wliich
they were asking from British buyers.
In the resultM. N. E. Ambatielos lost al1 his money that is :

Expenditure incurred by him for ~1,6jo,ooo
extras and money spent on improve-
ments and bringing the vessels to
Lloyd's highest class, sending
crews out East, etc., etc. 270,000

a total of ~I,~~O,OOO

together with a very considerablc sum paid in interest to his bank, and
isleft without any ships, whilst the British Government obtained through
this transaction &O~,OOOmore than they were willing to accept from
British buyers.
In conclusion my Government is still hoping that His hfajesty's
Government, after further consideration of the foregoing discourses
and estimations, will feel inclined to reconsider the matter in order thatan equitable settlement may be reached, the dctails and basis of which
my Government is ready to discuss. In case of such a solution not being

possible my Government confidently appeals to the friendly sentiments
and sense of justice of His Majesty's Government to examinewith them
the means of submitting the case to the appreciation of a mixed arbitral
commission in accordance with a practice which His Majesty's Govern-
ment has followed for more than a century in relation to several foreign
countries.
1 have the honour to be, etc.
(Signed) CH. SIMOPOULOS.
The Rieht~ ~--~~:~l~ ~ ~ ~
Anthony kden, M.C., M.P.,
His hfajesty's Principal Secretary of State
for Foreign Affairs, etc.

Certified true copy.
London, 14th July 1gjr
(Sigtted) G. ST. SEFERIADES,
Counsellor.

NOTE DE LA LÉGATION DE GRÈCE A LONDRES AU
SECRÉTAIRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES DE GRANDE-
BRETAGNE

LÉGATIOS ROYALE DE GRÈCE,
jr, Upper Brook Street,
London, \\'.I.
21 novembre 1939.
Excellence,

Me référantaux communications échangéesdans ces dernières années
entre le Foreign Officeet la légation royalede Grèce.en cette résidence,
au sujet de l'affairedel'armateur hellèneN. E. Ambatielos, ]'ail'honneur
de vous présenter, d'ordre de mon Gouverriement, les considérations
finales ci-après:
Les positions respectivement prises par chacune des parties dans
cette affaire ontéténettement définieset préciséedans la correspondance
précitée. IIn'y a pas lieu d'y revenir.
Pour en tirer une conclusion d'ensemble, il suffira de rappeler que
le Gouvernement hellénique a cru pouvoir relever dans cette affaire
des infractions au Traité de Commerce et de Navigation entre la Grèce
et la Grande-Bretagne du IO novembre 1886, qui constituent, à son
avis, des violations de droit international,C'est dans cette conviction
qu'il a cru devoir prendre fait et cause pour son ressortissant, ce qui
donne à ce différend le caractère d'un litige international.
Ces violations consistent notamment :
a) En ce que les autorités britanniques ont omis de produire devant
la juridiction de premi&re instance, saisie de l'affaire N. Ambatielos,
des documents essentiels pour la défense de ses droits, notamment
la correspondarice Maclay-Laing, fonctionnaires qualifiés pour agir ASNEXES AU IIÉMOIREHELLÉNIQUE (R 6) 97

dans cette affaire, correspondance dont il ressortait de toute évidence
que des dates avaient étéfixéespour la livraison des navires ce que,
d'ailleurs, ne rendait point douteux le contrat de vente du 17 juillet
1919 par la mention iwithin the time agreed ».
b) En ce que les autorités britanniques ont refusé à M.Ambatielos
de produire de nouvelles preuves, qui n'étaient parvenues en sa pos-
session qu'après. le jugement de première instance, devant les juges
d'appel, ce que la pratique antérieure autorisait en pareille occurrence.
La méconnaissance des deux règles de la procédure britannique du
<full discovery ialors que l'ordre public «public polic » n'était point
en jeu s'agissant d'une affaire commerciale, et du 1,resh evidence »,
ou du refus d'autoriser des preuves non\~elles, coristitue des actes
contraires au droit international, en tant que portant atteinte aux
droits de la défensedont l'article 15, para. 3, du Traité précitéde 1886
prescrit le respect.
L'application de la règle «full disco\rers n'a pas étémise en doute
par le Gouvernement de Sa Majesté britannique. Elle n'a étésubor-
donnée par ce Gouvernement qu'à la condition de réciprocité(note
di1 7 novembre 1,-4.,.dont le Gouvernement hellénique a affirmé
l'f:xistence.
Le Gouvernement royal se permet de rappeler a cette occasion que
le refus d'autoriser une partie à produire ses preuves constitue une
and Powell-Moore,ts dI+zter+cationalArbitrations, 1898, v. II, p. 2083.)

Le Gouveriiement de Sa Majesté britannique a repoussé, par ses
diverses notes, l'arbitrage proposé par le Gouvernement royal hellé-
n(Notes des z8 décembre 1933 ett inICIijuillet 1936.)tally inadmissiblen.
Cependant le Protocole annexé au Traité de 1886 prévoit la solution
du conflit par voie de Commissions arbitrales, pour tous différends
portant csur l'interprétation et l'application de ce trait».
Il résulte égalementde la correspondance échangéeentre le Foreign
Officeet la Legation royale hellénique, qu'une divergence de vues s'est
élevéeau sujet de l'épuisementpar M. Ambatielos des voies de recours
interne (local remedies). Le Foreign Office soutenait que ces moyens
n'ont pas été é uisés, la légation s'en tenant an point de vue opposé.
En effet, le8 ouvernement hellénique a tout lieu de considérer, sur
la foi des 'décisions de l'arbitre Undén dans l'affaire des forêts du
Rhodope central et de l'arbitre Bagge dans l'affaire des navires fin-
landais, qu'en l'occurrence, les voies de recours interne doivent être
considérées commeayant été épuisées.les juges d'appel n'ayant plus
le pouvoir de réexaminer les faits de la cause pour en tirer d'antres
déductions, faits tenus pour définitivement établis devant le tribunal
de première instance.
Mêmesur ce point préjudiciel le Gouvernement de Sa Majesté
britannique a cru devoir décliner l'arbitrage proposé par la légation
par sa note du 30 mai 1934 (no 1271/L/34). Ce point paumait être
tranché par la juridiction internationale éventuellement saisie de
l'affaire.
Dans l'imnérieux devoir au'il a de orotéeer son ressortissant.
dont des intérêtsconsidérahl& sont en jéu, le Gouvernement royal
hellénique, convaincu lui-même du bien-fondé de la réclamation deM. Ambatielos, a le légitime souci d'avoir en cette affaire I'appré-
ciation objective et impartiale d'une juridiction internationale.
Il serait heureux de connaîtreà ce sujet, le sentiment du Gouver-
nement de Sa i\lajesté britannique et, le cas échéant,son point de
vue sur le mode de procédurearbitraleàinstituer, qui est normalement
la procédure des Commissions arbitrales prévue par le Protocole du
par le Traité de Commerce de 1926, faute de solution possible duisé
différendpar la voie des négociations jusqu'à ce jour.
Aussi, le Gouvernement royal hellénique, sur la foi des précisions
qui précedent, et qui placent l'affaire actuelle sur son véritable terrain
juridique et juridictionnel, a tout lieu d'espérer, fort du sentiment
d'équitéet du respect des traités qui animent en toute circonstance
le Gouvernement de Sa Xajesté britannique, que le Gouvernement
de Sa Majesté voudra bien donner une suite favorable à la présente
note.
C'est dans cet espoir que j'ai l'honneur de prier Votre Excellence
de bien vouloir agréer, etc.
(Signé) CH. SIMOPOULOS.
The Right Honoiirable
Viscount Halifax. K.G.. G.C.S.I.. G.C.I.E..
H.M. principal, secretary of tat te
for Foreign Affairs, etc.

Certified true copy.
London, 14th July ïgjï.
(Signed) G. ST. SEFERIADES,
Counsellor.

Annexe R 7

NOTE DE LA LÉGATION DE GRÈCE A LONDRES AU
SECRÉTAIRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES DE GRANDE-
BRETAGNE

No.3734lL140.
The Greek Minister presentshis compliments to His Britannic Majesty's
Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and with reference to the
note addressed to him under Xo. R 106jS/ïo658/1~ ofthez6thDeceniber
1939,under instructions from his Government has the honour to forward
herexvith enclosed a Memorandum on the case of M. N. E. Amhaticlos.
The Royal Hellenic Government venture to hope that His Rritannic
Majesty's Goveriiment. in theirhigh sense of justice and their strict
adherence to the treaties on which their policy has always been based,
aiIl not refuse to settle tliis preliminary question of competeuce.
the Royal Hellenic Government. that the arbitral committee providedof
for by the final Protocol of theGreco-British CommercialTreaty of 1886
is the only competent authority in the matter, and it is their sincerehope
that His Britannic Majesty's Government will see their way to informthem of the appointment of their arbitrator or arbitrators for a final
settlement of this question.
Ros.41. GREBKLEGATIOS
London, 6th August 1940.
Certified true copy.
London, 14th July 1951.
(Signeci) G. SI. SEFEI~IADES,

Counsellor.

1. II rriior1 dc Inconimunic;ition ;i~lreîsi.cIcibdrcenihre ail ministre dc
Gr6cc <i I.oiiilrei rluILSiou\.crti~.i~~eilt 51 \Injc'stébritan~iique mnin-
t~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~i<,iiit(Ir \,uc. selon le«ii~.lle cns dr 11.S.I: . ~iibatielos n'est
pas susceitible d'être'soumis à'un arbitrage intemalionai. Comme les

raisons juridiques de ce refus, s'il en existe, ne sont pas données, le
Gouvernement hellénique se trouve dans I'impossibilité d'en apprécier
la valeur.
2. Après mùr exameii de l'affaire, le Gou\~emement hellénique a le
vif reeret de maraiier sur ce oint son dissentiment. 11a tout lieu de
con.idfrrr tqiircctii. .iil:iirc rciinit. s<Ii,iis.i~t~s.les ~>riiicilsudroit
Jts cciii. ct ~~;irii~iili~reiiiiiitles tr.ii~\.I;IIL.LII, S~~ncliri~ils\oiiI~~t:.;
nouÏ êtredgférée à un arbitrriee international
' 3. Il ne s'agit pas d'une )roposition d'arbitrage extrncontractuel,

comme ce fut le cas des propositions d'arbitrage formuléespar le Gouver-
nement hellénique dans le passé,mais d'un arbitrage formellement prévu
en l'espèce par le Protocole du Traité de Commerce et de Kavigation
gréco-britannique du IO novembre 1886 et de la déclaration finale du
Traité gréco-britannique de Commerce et de Xavigation du II juillet
1926, qui prévoient, à pareille fin, l'institution d'unecommissionarbitrale.
4. Les considérations qui militent, au sens du Gouvernement hellé-
nique, en faveur de l'application de ces dispositions ont étéexposées

en substance dans la note précédeiite de la légation royale. Il n'est
pas nécessaire d'en reprendre l'exposé.
Ces considérations portent sur des faits contraires au traité précitéde
1886, qui régit cette affaire, et notamment à l'article 15 de ce traité,
faits préjudiciables à M. Ambatielos, générateurs d'un droit à réparation
en sa faveur.
5. La proposition d'arbitrage du Gouvernement hellénique, comme
elle est spécifibe dans sa note précédente, constituerait, au sens du
Gouvernement de Sa blaiesté britanniaue. un facteur nouveau dans
l'ordre ilcc coiisid;rations préjentl'es p;ir Ir C.oiivt*riit:riiciitr~iyal.Cepen-

dant, iiiiciin priiicil~t:ile droit iiiteriiatiIIC S'O~~OSL'i la prL:s~.titntion
d'éli.inciit.rde dilciisc noiii.caitr.2tord <:lr?l.. nrrrs<,.
6. D'une façon généralela présente réclamation ne salirait encourir
aucun reproche de tardiveté. On ne saurait la considérer de ce chef
comme entachée de forclusion ou de prescription. Le fait qii'un élénient
d'ordre juridictionnel d'une façon précise la clause compromissoirc du
traité de 1586. a étéinvoqué en dernier lieu, lie saurait influer sur la
validitk de la réclamation.
7. C'est à tort que le Goiivemement de Sa Majestk britannique paraît

attacher de l'importance (no 3 de sa communication précitée) à cette coiisicliratioii, que Ics f;iits coiistitiitils de I;i ~)réscnte:illaire s'6tai1t
dcro~il;;~en 1910-1922.ce nc serait qii'<:n193.3q11'11 ll~iI'<)l)]t:t(le
reprc:sentationi foinielles dc 1:iDart (lu Gou\,crncmenr helliiiiauc. (:enen-
dint IIy iilieude r;ippelcr, dais cet urdre ~I'idCci, iltirIi,i;o;\.criirrnent
hcllliiiiqi;iorii fiiitet C~UYC pour su11ressurtiîi~i~t (lei 1,:12 i~l~te11111re
1-zi. i>iiiioiiei'cst ;Icette (1;itcciiil;ilécation 11c(irr'cci Loiidrcs a cru
devoir att&er l'attention du ~okvernement de Sa Majestébritannique
sur le cas de $1. Ambatielos. (Lettre de XI. Geor~es 3Iélas à Sir -4usten
Cliaiiibc.il~iiieii dntccli12 sc,iteiiibrc 1925 ~Lti'. 2335 13 25et ~+OIIW
(lu 1.oreih.nO~ICL .1130 i~ctoI>re192j sithn.. 13joo II~UI) I,).,
S. 11.1islurs m&meCIU' IC icrdlt agi cn l'cs~~~ecclIIIILI~~~II.,tI:irdive
ou tardivement renouvelée,une exception de prescription ou de forclu-
sion n'endevrait pas moins étrcécartée,sil'on tient compte de l'opinion
qui prévaut dans la doctrine et la juridiction internationales.
a) Dans l'affairede David J. Adams, dans laquelle laGrande-Bretagne
était partie (affaire rapportée sub no 18 dans I'American Journal O/
International Law, vol. 16, 1922, pi). 315-325). la sentence a étérendue
le g décembre1921et elle porte sur des points de faitet de droit qui sont
situés en l'année 1886, soit 35 ans auparavant.
b) Dans une sentence arbitrale du 14 octobre,xgoz rendue parla Cour

permanente d'Arbitrage de La Haye, entre les Etats-Unis et le Mexique,
il est affirmé que les regles de la prescription étant exclusivement du
domaine du droit civil, ne sauraient être appliquées au présent conflit
entre les Etats en litige ». (Reuuege'i~érad lee Droit international public,
1902, Doc. p. zj.)
C) Dans une sentence arbitrale rendue dans I'affaire George IV.Cook
par la General Claims Commission n présidéepar l'éminent juriste
hollandais Van Vollenhoven, le 3 juin 1927,toujours entre les Etats-Unis
et le Mexique, il est également affirméqu'rril n'existe pas de règle de
droit international im~osant une limitation de délaiDourl'exercice d'une
action diplomatique Ôu I'introductioii d'une réclaGation internationale
devant une juridiction internationale II. (Annual Di~est of Public
International Law Cases, 1927.1928, Cas no i74, p. 264.) '
g. La mêmerègle s'appliclue aux affaires où l'action dipIomatique,
engagée à temps, a été suspenduependant un certain nombre d'années.
Dans I'affairedu baleinier Canada, apres le refus du Brésilde faire droit
à la réclamationdes Etats-Unis, ceux-ci ont laissédormir l'action pendant
dix ans. La fin de non-recevoir tiréede la prescription n'en a pas inoins
6té écartée. (Sentencedu II juillet 1870 dans le Recueil des Arbitrages
internationaux, de NM. de Lapradelle et Politis, t. II, pp. 630 et 633.)
Et ces auteurs de faire remarquer : a Le droit international, droit
d'honneur et d'équité, éprouve pour la perte d'une action par le temps,
expédient suspect de procédure, une telle antipathie, que l'arbitre ici
l'écarteapres avoir constaté que la partie qui pouvait invoquer l'argu-
mentn'avait pas osécatégoriquement y recourir. ILa sentenceen l'espèce
avait étérendue par l'arbitre britannique M. Edward Thornton.
rVingt ou trente ans passés dans l'abstention, disent encore MM.
de Lapradelle et Politis, ne permettent pas d'écarter la demande. »
(Iieczreildes Arbitrages internationaux déjà cité, t. II, p. 270,)
IO. Quelle que soit l'autorité qui s'attache aux points de vue exposés
par le Gouvernement de Sa Majestébritannique et à la considération
sans réserve dont ils sont l'objet de la part du Gouvernement royal,
celui-ci a le regret de ne pouvoir se rallier à la thèse selon laquelle le AYIIEXES AU JIÉMOIRE HELLÉNIQUE (R 7) IOI

cas de M. Ambatielos ne saurait faire l'objet d'un &bitrage dans le
cadre des dispositions précitées.Urie telle interprétation ne saurait lier
le Gouvernement royal pour des raisons qui sont excellemment mises
en relief dans lcr sentence déjà citée, rendue par l'éminent juriste
M. Fromageot dans un différend entre la Grande-Bretagne et les
États-Unis. II y est précisé:

.The fundamental principle of the juridical equality of States
is opposed to placing one State under the jurisdiction of another
State. It is opposed to the subjection of one State to a interpre-
tation of a treaty asserted by another State. There is no reasori
why one more than the other should impose such a unilateral
interpretatiori of a contract which is essentially bilateral. Tlie fact
that this interpretation is given by the legislative, or judicial or
any other authority of one of the parties does not make that inter-
pretation binding upon the other Party. Far from contesting that
principle the British Government did not fail to recognize it.ii
(United States Memorial, p. 1x9.)
II. En conclusion de ce qui précède, leGouvernement helléniqueest
amené à constater qu'il se trouve en présenced'une divergence de vues
qui porte, quant à présent, sur un point de compétence préalable,celui
de savoir si le cas de M. Ambatielos rentre ou non dans le cadre du
Protocole annexéau Traitéde 1886, complété et précispar la déclaration
finale du Traitéde 1926, de façon à pouvoir êtredéféré à la commission
prévue par ledit Protocole. En effet, la seule solution logiqueetéquitable
de lacontroverse qui n'a puêtrerésolue,en dépit delongues négociations,
est d'avoir recours, à toutes fins utiles,à un corps arbitral impartial,
ce qui est le mode de reglement normal des différendsinternationaux.
Cela rentre rigoureusement d'ailleurs dans les termes de la déclaration
finale du Traité de 1926, d'une limpidité décisive, selon lesquels

H.... any difference which may arise between our two Govern-
ments as to the validity of the claims on behalf of private persons
based on the ~rovisions of the Anelo-Greek Commercial Treatv
of 1886 shall. it the request of eithzr Government, be referred Co
arbitration, in accordance with the provisions of the Protocol of
November IO, 1886, annexed to the iaid treaty B.
12. Sur la foi de ce qui précède,le Gouvernement royal hellénique,
mù par l'impérieux devoir deprotéger son ressortissant, et usant du
droit qui lui est conférépar les dispositions combinéesdu Traitéde 1886
et de la déclaration finale du Traité de rgzG, a l'honneur de demander
au Gouvernement de Sa Majestéde bien vouloir désigneraux fins précises
sub no II son ou ses arbitres, ainsi qu'il est prévu par le Protocole final
du Traité de ISSG,le Gouvernement royal se réservant de procéder à
une désignation analogue.

Londres, le 6 aoiit 1940
Certified true copy.
London, 14th July 1gj1.
(Signed) G. St. SEFERIADES,
Counsellor. Annexe R 8

NOTE DE L'AMBASSADEDE GRÈCE A LONDRES AU

SECRÉTAIRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGPRES DE GRAXDE-
BRETAGXE

No. 2775/L/49. GREEKEMBASSY.
The Greek Ambassador presents liis compliments to His Majesty's
Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairsand acting under instruc-
tions of his Government hasthe honour to revert tonote No. 3734/L/40
of the 6th Augnst 1940,with regard to the case of M.N. E. Ambatielos,
to which no fond reply from the British Govemment has up to this
day been received.
2. The Greek Government has purposely refrained from pressing
this claimduring the state of emergency arisiiig out of the last war,
in which both countries were engaged as Allies and during which the
war effortoverrode a11outstandingmatters. Nowthatnormalconditions
have been restored and that pendiiig questionscan be investigated, the
Greek Government consider that they would be failing in their duty
to protect the interests of their nationals if they were to postpone any
longer the request for the settlement ofilAmbatielos's case.
3. The Greek Government, therefore, reiterate their request to the
effect that the British Government accept that the dispute be referred
to a Commission of Arbitration as provided by the Protocol annexed
to the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation hetween Great Britain and
Greece of the 10th November 1886, so that this Commission may decide
whether, in the course of the procedure followed in this matter before
the British courts, the reciprocal obligations undertakenr article 15,
paragraph 3. of the aforesaid Treaty of 1886, had been disregarded.
unwilling to accept this proposal, the Greek Govemment woiild reluc-be
tantly find itself compelled to proceed in accordance with the dispositions
of the final Declaration of the Treaty ofommerce and Navigation of
1926, taken in conjunction with article 29 of the same Treaty, and to
refer the matter to the International Court of Justice, placing nnder
the Court's consideration the preliminary question as to whether or
not the British Government are under the obligation to accept the
procedure stated above in paragraph 3.
5. Considering that this question is entirely of'legal nature, the
Greek Government feel that theabore procedure would in no way entail
a deviation from the course prescribed by the very close ties of friendship
that have always existed between the two countries, and that it would
be in accordance with the desire recently expressed by His Bntannic
Majesty's Govemment that any legal dispute arising witli another
Government be submitted to the International Court of Justice.

London, 11th May 1949.
Certified tme copy.
London, 14th July 1951.
(Sigited) G. St. SEFERIADES,
Counsellor. ANNEXES AU ~IÉMOIRE HELLÉNIQUE (S 1-2) 103

Annexe SI

NOTE DU SECRETAIR EES AFFAIRES ETRANGGRES
DE GRANDE-BRETAGXE A LA LÉGATION DE GIIÈCE
A LOh'DRES

No. C 135og!1176g/1g.
FOREIGK OFFICE,S.W.I.
Sir, 30th October 1925.

1 have the honour to refer to Monsieur Illélas'snote No. 2335/N3/25
of 12th ultimo, in mhich he enclosed amemorandum preparM. N. E.
Ambatielos in regard to the purchase in 19x9of certain ships then under
course of construction for His Jlajesty's Government at Hong Kong
an2.S1 have the honour to inform you thaJI. Ambatielos presented
a mernoriai in the early part of this year to the President of the Board
of Trade in whicli the case was explained on lines similar to those of
the enclosure in hlonsieur Rfélas'snote under reference. It was then
personally reviewed by the President who, after full arid careful exami-
nation, found that neither on lcgal nor on moral grounds was there :iny
justification for granting any relief on the lines desired. It is regretted,
therefore, that, as there are noi facts in the memorandum to justify
a reopening of tlic case. His hlajesty's Government are unable to
reconsider their previous decision.
1 have the honour to be, etc.
(For the Secretary of State)
(Signed) CC.HOM'ARS>IITH.
3lonsieur D. Caclamanos, etc.

Annex Sz

NOTE DU SECRETAIR IES AFF.4IRES ÉTRANGÈRES
DE GRANDE-BRETAGNE A LA LÉGATION DE GRGCE

A LONDRES
No. C 4625/1172/1g.
FOREIGN OFFICE.S.tY.1.
29th May 1933.
Sir,
1 have had under careful consideration the note which you were good
enough to address to me on February 7th last (No. 358/L/33), in whicb.
on the instrnctions of your Government, you suggested that a dispute
which was aüeged to exist between His Majesty's Goirernment in the
United Kingdom and Monsieur h'icholas Ambatielos. a Greek citizen.
should be referred to arbitration before an international tribunal. The
material facts of the case are briefly as follows.
2. By a contract dated July 17th. xgrg, made between Monsieur
Ambatielos and the then Shipping Controller, the former agreed to WOTE Do SECRÉTAIRE DES I~FFAIRES ÉTR~IXGÈRES

DE GK.4XDE-BRET.4GSE A LA LEG.4TIOX DE GRÈCE
A LONDRES
No. C 11030/1172/1g.
FOREIGN OFFICE,S.\\'.I.
28th December 1933.
Sir,
1 have had under careful consideratioii the note nrhich you were good
enough to address to me on 3rd August last (So. 2077/L/33) relating
to the case of Monsieur Xicholas Ambatielos.
2. It is unnecessary for me to repeat the statement of the facts of
the case contained in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the note which 1 had the
honour to address to you on 29th May last. 1 gather that this statement
of the factsis not disputed by the Greek Government. Your Government
appear, however, to question my stateinent that the contract dated
17th July 1g19, made between hfonsieur Ambatielos and the then
Shipping Controller, was an ordinary commercial contract, though the
only ground for dispnting this statement which is suggested in your
note'is that "the agreement was for the supply of ships destined for
the Greek Mercantile Marine". Every contract for the sale of a ship is
an agreement for the supply of a ship for the Mercantile Narine of the
country wliose ikag the vesse1is intended to fly, and the fact that in
this case the vessels which formed the suhject of the contract were
intended to form part of the Greek Mercantile hfarine in no way affects
the fact that thecoiitract in question was properly described in iny note
as an ordinary commercial contract. 1observe that in paragraph z of
the contract \vasAagucominercial one does not, in the opinion of your
Government, appear to have any bearing on the questions involved
1am nnable to agree witli this vielv. Themateriality of thisconsideration
is that, as was explained in my note of 29th hfay, the case is, despite
the fact that one of the parties to the contract was a Greek national
and the other a department of His Majesty's Government, ail ordinary
matter of purchase and sale, and that any questions arising in counection
tlierewith fell to be decided, not by aiiy fonn of international procedure,
but by the competent tribunals of this country.
3.For present purposes it may be assumed that the substantial issue
which arose between Monsieur Ambatielos and the Board of Trade was
whether, by the agreement in question, tlie Ministry of Shipping had
undertaken to deliver the ships at certain fixed dates. This question,
together with al1 the other questions which had arisen, was, by agree-
ment betweeu the parties, submitted to the decision of tlie Admiralty
Division of the High Court of Justice in this country. After a hearing
which extended over eight days, Mr. Justice Hill decided in favour of
the contention of the Board of Trade and found "that there was no
contract to deliver by times certain". Alonsieur Ambatielos entered
an appeal against this decision, but subsequently withdrew it, and the
decision accordingly became final. In these circumstances it is plain that,
according to the well-settled principles of international law, the fact ANSEXES AU hlÉhl01~~ HELLEXIQUE (S 3) 107

that one party to the contract was a Greek national and the other a
department of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, does
not entitle the Greek Government, as is suggested in your note, to seek
redress on beha!f of its national on the ground of breach of contract.
decided by the tribunal to which the parties agreed to refer it, and the
only ground on which the Greek Government might be entitled to make
diplornatic representations to His hlajesty's Government would (subject
always to the consideration that Monsieur Ambatielos did not make use
of his right of appe:il andhad therefore not exhausted his legal remedies)
be that the decision in question constituted a denial of justice in the
sense which interiiational law recognizes as involving the responsibility
of the State concerned.

that if English law "would not recognize His Majesty's Government'stated
obligation to deliver the ships purchased by Monsieur Ambatielos on
the dates fixed", the law would be "in this respect so contrary to equity
that it could not be set up as an answer to the Greek Goyernment's
claim under international law". If it had been found that His Majesty's
Government were under an obligation to deliver the ships on the dates
fixed. that obligation would certainly be recognized and enforced by
English law, but in this case the Court, after full investigation, found
that no such obligation existed and that the contract did not provide
for delivery at fised dates. Any suggestion, therefore, that on this ground
the decision could be held to constitute a denial of justice cannot be
snstained.
j. This being so, 1 am still not clear whether, and if so on what
grounds, your Government contend that the decision of MI. Justice
Hill amonnted to a denial of justice, but it may be that the statements
madein paragraphs 3 and 5 of your note constitute the grounds on wliich
such a suggestion is made, and 1 therefore proceed to deal with them.

6. The effect of these statements is that information was deliberately
withheld from the Court by the Attorney-Gcncral and the other represen-
Hill was, to their knowledge, not in accordance with the facts.r. JuIt is
apparently suggested that at the time of the trial the representatives
of the Crown were aware that the Shipping Controller had agreed, as
part of the contract between himself and Monsieur Ambatielos, to
deliver the ships on ccrlairi fixed dates, and that notw,ithstaiiding that
knowledge on their part,theyput forward the opposite contention before
Mr. Justice Hill and succeeded iii persuading the Court that it was
correct. 1 cannot conceal my surprise and regret that the Greek
Government should have seen fit to make so senous an allegation against
the representatives of the Crowii, and my surprise is not diminished
by the fact that the suggestion is made for the first time more than ten
years after the proceedings in question took place. Although the Greek
Government were aware of the contents of the letters on which this
allegation isbased at the time when the Greek Chargé d'Affairesaddressed
to my predecessor his note No. 2335/N/3/25 of zrst September 1925,
which enclosed a memorandum by Monsieur Ambatielos in which these
letters were quoted in full, no suggestion was then made that they
justified the very serious allegations that yoiir Goverilment are nom.
8putting forward. But as the suggestion has been made, 1 will show that
it is totaliy unfounded.
7. The contention of the Departments of His Majesty's Govern-
ment concerned has throughout beeu that no agreement was ever
made that the shius should be delivered on certain fixed dates.
and that the only agreement as to dates of delivery was the provision
in the contract under which each steamer was to bedelivered immediately
after it had been acceoted bv the vendor from the contractor. the buver
within which to take delivery. His hlajesty's Gorernment do not dispute
that, aç would naturally liave been expected, hlonsieur Ambatielos was
informed of the dates on which it was anticipated that the ships would
be ready for delivery, and evidence was in fact given before Mr. Justice
Hill to the effect tliat the dates mentioned in a letter from Monsieur
Ambatielos of 3rd July 1919t, o which 1 shall subsequently refer were
taken from a huffslip upon which hlr. Bamber of the hlinistry of Shipping
had written the best estimate he was able to make of the dates for the
delivery of each vessel. But the contention of the departments concerned
has throughout been that no undertaking to deliver on those dates was
ever ~ven. and that it would have been imuossible for such an under-
taking to be given, since, as regards the daies wheii the vessels would
actually be completed, the Shipping Controller was entirelyin the hands
of the builders, and was, therefore, not in a positioii (especially whrre,
as in this case, the builders were foreign contractors) to ensure that he
would be able to carry out any such undertaking. For this reason it
was never the practice of the hfinistry of Shipping, when contracting
for the sale of vesselsunder construction, to agree upon fixed dates for
delivery. This view of the case was accepted by hlr. Justice Hill, who
said in his judgment :"The ships were being built ~nder contracts which
did not carry fixed dates, but times depending upon conditions, and
each building contract contained a u<de exception clause. It is far from
improbable that the Shipping Controller should undertake to deliver as
and when delivery was made by the builders. It is most improbable that
he should agree to fixed dates without any clause of exceptioii at all."
The judge added that "It is clear from the evidence that M.G.E.Amba-
tielos did al1he could to iiiduce the ShippingController's representatives
to insert fixed times in the written contract, and that this was definitely
anS. Such being the contention which the departments concerned have
consistently maintained, the only ground suggested for the very serious
allegation that this contention was, to their knowledge, not in accord-
ance with the facts, consists of certain correspondence which passed
between Major Laing andthe former Sh'ippingController in July 1922.
and which, accordingly, took place, and came to the knowledge of the
representatives of the Crown, some nine months after the proceedings
in the Admiralty Division had heen instituted. About this correspondence
there are two observations to be made, which completely refute the
allegations which the Greek Govemment have seen fit to base upon it.
9. The first is that even assuming that the statements made in the
correspondence by Major Laing constituted an accurate account of what
had passed between him and Monsieur Ambatielos (an admission which
1 am not to be taken as making), there is nothing in that account
which amounts to a statement that Major Laing had, on behalf of the ANNEXES AU MÉMOIRE HELLÉ~IQUE (S 3) 109
Shipping Controller, given a definite undertaking that the ships woiild
be delivered on the dates mentioned, an undertaking which, incidentally,
Major Laing had no authority to gire. In particular, there is nothing
in these letters which in any way supports Monsieur Amhatielos's
account, as given in paragraph 3 of your note, of what took place during
the interview at wliich the contract was signed. There is, in fact, nothing
in Major Laing's account which is inconsistent with the contention of
thk Shipping Controller as described ahove, according to wliich ion sieur
Ambatielos was informed of the dates on which it was anticipated that
delivery would be given, but that no agreement was made that the ships
would, in fact, be delivered at those dates.
IO. The second observation which 1 have to make is that the letters
in question contain nothing which was not before the Court at the hearing
and which was not taken into account hy Mr. Justice Hill in reachiiig
his decision. InMay 1921, two letters were exchanged between Monsieur
Ambatielos and Major Laing. These letters were before the Court in
the proceedings before Mr. Justice Hiii ; in the course of those procecd-
ings they were referred to on at least three occasions by Monsieur
Ambatielos's leading counsel, and they were specifically mentioned by
Mr. Justice Hill in his judgment. 1 do not think that the Greek Govern-
ment can be acquainted with these letters, for if they were, 1 am
convinced that they would not have made the very serious allegations
against the Crown's representatives contained in your note, and 1
therefore enclose copies of them herewith, together with a copy of a
letter dated 3rd July 1919. from Monsieur Ambatielos to his hrother,
Monsieur G. E. Ambatielos, which is referred to in the letter of 2nd May
1921. If the Greek Government will compare this correspondence with
the letters which passed in July 1922, between Major Laing and the
former Shipping Controller, they will see that there is no material
information contaiiied in the latter mhich does not appear in the former,
with the exception that the sum of ~500,ooo mentioned in Major Laing's
letter of 20th July 1922, as being the additional amouiit which the
ships could be expected to earn ifthey were delivered at the dates stated,
is not specifically mentioned iii the 1921 correspondence. This figure
Monsieur Ambatielos. Accordingly al1 the matenal contained in they
1922 correspondence was, in fact, before Mr. Justice Hill and taken into
consideration by him in his judgment, and the suggestion that the
representatives of the Crown, in the light of their knowledge ofthe later
correspondence, are to be regarded as having withheld material infor-
mation from the Court is destitute of the slightest foundation.
II. In the course of his judgment, Mr. Justice Hill made the followiiig
observation about the letters of May 1921 :"The letters in May 1921
do not help the defendant. Major Laing had ceased to be on the staff
of the Ministry on 30th September 1920, and was not the plaintiff's
agent to make admissions. But in any case, the assurance stated to
have been given by Major Laing waç not that the dates were contractual,
but that he was satisfied that the dates mentioncd in the defendant's
letter of 3rd July 1919,could be relied on. It al1points to the expression
hy Major Laing of an expectation of delivery within certain months.
But that is a very different thing from a contract that they shall be so
delivered." These observations would be equally applicable to the letters
of July 1922. 110 AXNEXES AU IIÉ~IOIRE HELLÉXIQDE (S 3)

12. Rloreovcr, the correspondence shows tliat when the contract \vas
concluded, and for some time afterwards, fhe parties werc still uncertain
as to the dates on which the ships were expected to be completed. On
16th July ~grg, the day before the contract \vas signed, Monsieur G. E.
Ambatielos, who nas acting for his brother, wrote a letter to Rlajor
Laing which reads :
"Confirming our con\~ersatioiiof this afternoon, \ve beg to thank
you for promising to cable builders at both Hong Kong and Shanghai
to ascertain the exact position and deliveries of the six B and three
C type steamers which have been purchased by Monsieur K. E.
Ambatielos."

Again on 5th August 1919,Monsieur G. E. Ambatielos wrote a letter
to Major Laing in which the following passage occurs :
"When Messrs. 1:ergusson and Law concluded the purchase and
signed the agreement on account of Alonsieur N. E. Ambatielos
for the above boats, we uiiderstood that you have sent a \\ire
to the builders asking them to let you knon what \vas the exact
position of each of these nine steamers and when same would he
ready for delivery.
Monsieur Ambatielos keeps on asking us for this information
and you can readily appreciate of what vital importance it is to
him, and we will therefore thank you to let us know what reply
you have received froin the builders. Shouldyou, however, not have
heard from them, wewill feelmuch obliged if you willbegood enough
to despatch another urgent cablegram asking tliem for full infor-
mation regarding tlie actual position and expected delivery, and
instructing the builders to do al1 in their power to accelerate and
espedite matters in connection with the building of the steariiers
so that the same may be delivered to Monsieur Ambatielos at the
soonest (only) possible."
About the middle of August hloiisieur Ambaticlos received two cables
from his Hong Kong agents giaing certain dates, but stating expressly
. that they were approximate. It being the position that el-en after the
signature of the contract the dates when the ships were expected to be
completedwere not definitely known, it isinconceivable that the Sliipping
Controller could have agreed to clcliver them on certain fixed dates.
13. hloreover, the subsequent coiiduct of AIonsieur Ambatielos and
his representatives is quite inconsistent with his Iiaving believed at the
time when the coiitract \vas made that the Ministry of Shipping had
accepted an obligation to deliver the ships on certain fixed dates. \\'ere
it true in fact that such an obligation had been accepted, it is obvious
that when delivery was not made at these dates, Alonsieur Ambatielos
would have protested against the breach of contract and reserved the
na-t to make a claim for damaees. No such ixotest was made. and no
siiggcstion<iibrc:icliofcontr.ict\vaspui fonvs;il 1))\loiisieiir :\nibltielos
uniil April 1921.iic.irly tivu !.c;irs ;ifter the sigiiing uf tlie cuiitr:icI aiid
at a tinic w11eriICw.1~ :ilre:t~in ~lifhcultit:~as tiri?~?tiri~tlI)~IVIIICIIIS
due urider it. During the intervening period a number of lettêrs.passed
whicli are impossible to reconcile with any contention that there was
a contract to deliver the ships on fised dates1 donot wish to overburden
this note with quotations from the correspondence, wliich is at the ANNEXES AU MÉ~IOIRE HELI.ÉNIQUE (S 3) III

disposal of your Govemment if desired, but it will be found throughout
that.while Monsieur Ambatielos or his re~resentatives were continuallv
urging that completion should be accecrated in the case of vessek
that were not ready for delivery on the dates which had been mentioned,
there is not a single suggestion that the failure to deliver on those dates
or that Monsieur Ambatielos was entitled to claim damages on accountiig,
of the failure to deliver onhese dates. In particular, on 3rd February
19~1M ,onsieurG. E. Ambatielos wrote aletter to the ShippingController,
on behalf of his brother, in which he explained the financial difficulty
in which Monsieur N. E. Ambatielos found himself by reason of loss
of charters ~nd the slump in shipping, and asked for release from his
obligations to take two other ships, but he made no suggestion that
the loss was due to a breacli of contract on the part of the Shipping
Controller in failing to deliver the ships at certain dates. In fact, the
whole of this correspondence is only consistent with the contention
put fonvard throughout by the MiniStry of Shipping that there %.as
never any undertaking on tlieir part to deliver the ships on certain
fixed dates, but merely an intimation of the dates on which the comple-
tion of the ships and their consequent delivery might be expected. The
conclusion isinevitable that the contrary suggestion was an afterthought,
put forward by Monsieur Ambatielos for the first time when he found
himself in difficulties as to the fulfilmeni of his obligations.
14.Before leaving this part of the case,1 desire to point out that the
person who, according to Monsieur Ambatielos, had undertaken on
behalf of the Shipping Controller the obligation to deliver the ships at
certain fixed dates, was hfajor Laing (although, as hfr. Justice Hill
pointed out in his judgment, Major Laing had no authority to finally
and certain of his assistants), and if Major Laing had reaiiy undertakenr
that obligation Monsieur Ambatielos's obrious course was to cal1 him
as a witness to prove it. He did not, in fact, do so.ee that it is stated
in paragraph 4 of your note that "efforts were made without success
to subpŒna Major Laing on hlonsieur Ambatielos's behalf belore the
trial", but ifthis means that there was any difficulty in hfajor Lairig
being called as a witness on behalf of Monsieur Ambatielos, tliis is not
in accordance with the facts. The correspondence of May 1921referred
to above shows that, at that date, Monsieur Ambatielos was in touch
with Jlajor Laing, who had ceased to be in the employment of His
hlajesty's Government for some time ; in an affidavit by hlonsieur
.4mbatielos which was read by his counsel to the Court of Appeal on the
application for leave to call further evidence, it was statcd tliat before
the trial of the action Monsieur Ambatielos had a conversation with
Major Laing about it, in the course of which Major Laing mentioned
the existence of the letters of July 1922, and even read him a part of
the contents of the letters;and finally AIajorLaing \\.as in Court during
the proceedings before Mr. Justice Hill, and there would not have been
the slightest difficulty in calling him as a witness if hlonsieur Ambatielos
and his advisers had considered this desirable. In fact, Monsieur Amba-
tielos abstained from calling tlic one witness wliom, if his contention
he was at the time aware of the existence, and at any rate part of the
contents, of the letters of July 1922. xj. It results from the above considerations that there is not the
slightest foundation for the suggestion that the case put forward at
the trial by the representatives of the Crown was to their knowledge
not in accordance with the facts, and any contention, based on this
suggestion, that Mr. Justice Hill's decision coiistituted a denial of justice,
falls to the ground. On the contrary, it is plain that al1 the material
considerations were before Mr. lustice Hill. and. whileit is not necessarv
for rny piirl>oseto deinunstratë that hi, \.icu. uf the lgr?cment mxie
bct\ieri~ Jlonsieiir :\rnb;iticlos and the Sl~iypii~: oiitrolle\va5 correct.
everything goes to show that in fact it waiso; and that no agreement
was ever made for the delivery of the vessels on certain fised dates.
16. There are certain othermatters mentioned in your notewith which
1 desire to deal briefly. In paragraph j a complaint ismade that certain
files"kept at the Ministry ofShippingin which particulars ofthe contracts
discussed hy the Shipping Control Committee were entered" had not
been produced on the ground of the privilege of the Crown. This com-
plaint is not understood. The whole of the correspondence between the
Ministry of Shippiiig and the builders of the vessels in question in the
Far East was disclosedto the solicitorsrepresenting MonsieurAmbatielos.
The files contaiiiing the correspondence were so numerous that the
solicitors in question inspected them at the Board of Trade Office, and
copies of certain of these documents for whicli they asked were supplied
to them, and were included in the bundles of correspondence which were
before &Ir.Justice Hiii at the hearing. The only documents which were
not disclosed were the minutes on the official files written by officiais
of the Government Departments concerned, and it is well-known that
in this country, and, so far as His Majesty's Government are aware,
in al1other countries as well, documents of this nature are iiever made
public, whether in the course of litigation or othenvise.
17. In paragraph 5of your note the narne of hlr. O'Byrne is mentioned
as that of an individual aeainst whom vour Government mav intend
to make some charge. It isnot clear what the nature of the charge is,
but there are letters in existence written by Monsieur G. E. Ambatielos
in the year rgzo in which he speaks in wirm terms of the maiiner in
which Mr. O'Uyrne had treated him, and says, in particular : "We feel
it incumbent upon us to herein express as well Our most appreciative
tlianks for the fair spirit in which you have always dealt with us, and
~ ~ ~his case ~ ~'~~-~~-~~~~~"
18. In paragraph 4 of your note it is argued that Monsieur Ambatielos
is not to be reearded as Iiavine failed to exhaust his leral remedies in
this case. 1 a< unable to accëpt this argument. ~venassuniin~ that
no appeal lay from the refusai of the Court of Appeal to admit new
evidence in the shape of the correspondence of July 1322,I have shown
above that the correspondence in question contained no matenal which
had not been fully dealt with in the proceedings before Mr. Justice Hill,
and consequently the decision of the Court of hppeal on this point made
no differencewhatever as regards the prospects of a successful appeal
from MI. Justice Hill's decision. There was, in fact, no questioii of "new
evidence" which was not before Mr. Justice Hill. As to the prospects
of an appeal from the judge's decision, it is to be obserred that, while
the Court of Appeal might well have beeu slow to upset such parts of
hlr. Justice Hill's judgment as depended exclusively on the view which
he took as to the reliability of the oral evidence given before him, this to the Couit of Appeal are by way of re-hearings and the Court hasls
full powers as to drawing inferences of fact from the evidence ;in this
case there was a vast amount of documentary evidence as well as oral
evidence, and the Court of Appeal would certainly have been entitled
to draw inferences of fact from the documentary evidence if it liad
thought right to do so. In point of fact, it is admitted that notice of
appeal was given on behalf of Monsieur Ambatielos and subsequently
withdrawn, and in these circumstances it cannot be denied that he has
failed to exhaust the remedy by way of appeai which was open to him.
The alleged fact that he was not then financially in a position to prosecute
his appeal is immaterial in considering whether he had, in fact, exhausted
his legal remedies. Accordingly his failure to do so is, in itsela,bar to
any diplomatic action on his behalf hy the Greek Government.
19. 1 have now dealt with al1the considerations put fonvard in your
note of ~3rd August and have shown that they in no way affect the
attitude adopted in my note of 29th May, which 1 must therefore
maintain in its entirety. The questions which arose between Monsieur
Ambatielos and the Ministry of Shipping were matters which, in accord-
ance with the contract between them, were to be decided by the
appropriate tribnnals in this country, and they were, in fact, finally
disposed of more than ten years ago by the judgment of the Admiralty
Division, to which Monsieur Ambatielos had agreed to refer them. No
appeal has been taken from this judgment. In these circumstances the
to make the mattcr the subject of diplomatic representations on behalfled
of their national would be a contention that Mr. Justice Hill's decision
constituted a deniai of justice, and to any such representations the
fact that no appeal wasmade from that decisionwould in itself constitute
a bar. Moreover, if the Greek Government rely on certain allegations
put forward in your note as showing that a denial of justice did, in fact,
occur (and no othcr grounds for such a contention have been suggested),
1 have shown that these ailegations are entirely unfounded. In these
circumstances 1 must regard the proposai of the Greek Government
that these matters should, more than ten years after they occurred,
be reopened and made the subject of some form of international arbitra-
tion, as being one which is totally inadmissible, and 1 must make it
plain that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom can agree
to no such proposal.
1 have the honour to be, etc.
(For the Secretary of State),

(Signad) [illegible.](No. C 10189/117z/rg.)

EXTRAIT D'UNE LETTRE DE AI. E. J. FOLEY, MINISTÈRE
DU COMMERCE, AU SOUS-SECRÉTAIRE D'ÉTAT, AFFAIRES
ÉTRANGÈRES, DU 20 NOI'EMBRE 1933 (Voir Annexe S 3)

Paris, 3rd July 19x9.
G. E. Ambatielos, Esq.,
Grand Hotel,
Bd. des Capucines,
Pans.
Dear Sir,

1 hereby authonze you to buy for my account the seven B type boats
now in course of construction at Hong Kong on the following terms
and conditions :
Delivery. Two August/September, two ~ctober/~ovember, one in
December and the remaining two not later than February 192. .
Price. At not exceeding two hundred and eighty five thousand pounds
sterling per each including al1 commissions.

Tradi~igclause.A clause to be inserted in the contract guaranteeing
me the right to trade the steamers anywhere 1 like and al1 facilities
to be accorded to me by the British authonties for bunkers repairs;
etc., etc., for such trade.
Trunsfer. It is naturally understood that the steamers would be
allowed to be transferred to any foreign flag, and tha1 have the right
of selling part or al1such steamers to foreigners.
Deposil. A sum of one hundred thousand pounds sterling to be paid
on signing the contract against the ten per cent deposit (which deposit
1 can in case of need increase up to fifteen per cent) and the balance to
make up such a deposit within a month from the signing of the contract.
Every ship to be paid respectively in cash on delivery less the agreed,
deposit.
If hl. A. Francjopoulo has purchased any of these boats for my
account same are to be included in this contract at the same price and
conditions.
Yours faithfully,
(Signed) N. E. A~~BATIELOS.

2nd hlay I~ZI.
Dear Major Laing,
Yon may remember calling on me in Paris abolit the end of August
1919 regarding the purchase of nine boats, negotiated by my brother
from the Ministry of Shipping. In the course of conversation we Iiad,
1 remember emphasizing to you that 1 attached the utmost importance
to the dates of delivery which you had giren to my brother and which
appear in my letter to him ofthe 3rd July, and those dates you assured
me you were satisfied could be relied upon. You explained to me that 1 was justified in paying the apparently
higli figures 1 had paid because you were selling and 1 was buying the
then position, deliveries and freights in connection with the steamers
rather than the steamers alone.
1 should be much obliged if you would let me know whether your
recollection of Our interview coincides with mine.
Yours very truly,

(Signed) N. E. AMB.*TIELOS.

73, St. James Street
London, S.W.

11th May 1921.
Dear Mr. ilmbatielos,

1 am in receipt of your letter of the 2nd May. 1 understand you have
be1 have read your letter through very carefully and so far as 1 (:anr.
recollect your letter states what took place at the interview to which
you refer.

Yours faithfully,
(Signed) BRYAK LAING.
'licolas Ambatielcis, Esq.,
18, Cavendish Square, London, \V.

Annexe S 4

XOTE DU SECRÉTAIRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES
DE GRANDE-BRETAGNE A LA LÉGATION DE GRÈCE
.4LONDRES

Xo. R 6043/3146/19.
FOREIGNOFFICE,S.MT.l.
7th November 1934.
Sir,
In thenote which 1hadthe honour to address to you on December 28th
about the case of XI.Xicholas Ambatielo1dealt fully with your commu-
nication of August 3rd1933,and explained in detail the attitude adopted
by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. 1 desire to Say
at once that 1 find nothing in your further note dated May 30th
(No. 1271/L/34) which in any way modifies the views then expressed
which 1 must maintain in their entircty;but as your Government have
thought it necessary to revert to the matter, 1 desire.to make the
following observations on it.
2. In paragraph 2 you Say that my Government "does not appear
to dispute the interest of the Greek Government in this matter or the~rinciule that it is entitled under international law to intervene on behalf
of a n'ational whom it conceives to have suffered an injury by reason
of breach by another eovernment of a contract between theni". If 1
am to understand thatin the view of the Greek Government the mere
fact that they consider thatM. Ambatielos has suffered injury by reason
of a breacb bv His Rlaiestv's Government of a contract made hetween
them entitleswthem to.intérvene in the matter, this statement is one
from which 1 must emphatically dissent. The views of His Majesty's
Government on this point were set out in paragraph 3 of my note of
December 28th last, and have not altered in any way. The matters at
issue between M. Ambatielos and His Majesty's Government, which
related to an ordinary commercial contract of sale, having been decided
by the tribunal to which M. Ambatielos had agreed they should be
referred, the only possible case (and that subject always to the point
that M. Ambatielos did not exhaust his right of appeal) in which in
international law the Greek Government would be entitled to take up
the case would be if they were prepared to allege and demonstrate that
the decisions of the English courts constituteda denial of justice in the
sense which international law recognizes as involving the responsibility
of the State concerned.

3. Despite the proportions which this correspondence has now assumed,
1 am still not altogether clear whether the Greek Government contend
that such a denial of justice has occurred in the present case, or if so,
on what grounds they rely as justifying such a contention. In my last
note 1 dealt fully with what 1 then conceived to.be the contention of
your Government on this point, i.e. "that information \vas deliberately
withheld from the Court by the Attorney-General and other represen-
tatives of the Crown, and that the case as stated before Mr. Justice Hill
was to their knowledge not in accordance with the facts". In paragraph 5
of your note under reply you inform me that your Government never
intended to make such a suggestion as regards "the Attorney-General
or other superior representatives contending the case for the Crown",
and that your Government "feel convinced that the Attorney-General
and other Crown Counsel were unaware of the correspondence inquestion,
which being privileged from production under Eiiglish law of procedure
would presumably not be before them in the ordinary course". The
allegation apparently now is that some unnamed person in the Treasury
Solicitor's Department, who uras aware of the correspondence before
the hearing, deliberately abstained from putting it before counsel. This
suggestion is unfounded. The correspondence in question was before
counsel representing the Crown and was carefully considered by them
before the hearing before Rlr. Justice Hill took place, and the case for
the Crown was prepared in the full knowledge of the contents of those

letters.1 explained fully in paragraph 7 and the following paragraplis
of my note of December 28th the attitude which the representatives of
the Crown have adopted throughout on this point and the reasons which
satisfied them that there was nothing in the correspondence iii question
to lead them to modify that view. 1 need not repeat what was there said,
but may add that in an interview which the Treasury Solicitor had
with Major Laing at the time, the latter stated that he had pointed out
to RI. Ambatielos that in making an offer for the ships he would be able
to take into consideration the very large freights which he would be able
to earn with them on the voyages homewards to the United Kingdom ANNEXES AU MÉMOIRE HELLÉNIQUE (S 4) 119

Major Laing himself.When the question was put to him by the Treasury
Solicitor before the heanng in 1922 (seeparagraph 4 above), Major Laing
professed himself entirely unable to remember what he might have said
or not have said to M. Ambatielos. 13ut. as the following circumstances
show, his memory was far more clear at an earlier date. As the Greek
Government are aware, the suggestion that the Ministry of Shipping
had accepted an obligation to deliver the ships on certain fixed dates
was not put forward by M. Ambatielos until the early months of 1921.
The suggestion was made by M. Ambatielos to Mr. O'Byrne in an inter-
view which they had in Paris in or about March of that year. On
Mr. O'Byrne's return to London, according to a statement made by him
when the case of the Crown was being prepared for the proceedings
beforeMr. Justice Hill, he spolie to Major Laing and specifically asked
him whether he had given M. Ambatielos any defiiiite assurance or
guarantee that the ships would be delivered on certain dates. Major
Laing absolutely denied that he had ever given such an assurance or

guarantee, and pointed out that at the time the sale was arranged
nobody could tell positively when the ships would be delivered by the
builders, having regard to the terms of the contract existing between
the builders and the Ministrv. This fact. incidentallv. is in itself sufficient
tu dispose of any suggestioi that the case put forGard at the trial by
the representatives of the Crown was, to their knowledg-. not in accor-
dance'with the facts.
IO. Major Laing states in paragraph 6 of his Statutory DeclaraCion
that before the contract was signed he had given M. G. E. Ambatielos
"a piece of buff paper on which 1had copied the agreed delivery àates
which were the same as those which had been cabled to me as reliable

dates from Hong Kong and Shanghai". In point of fact the buff slip was
prepared and handed to Major Laing by Mr. Bamber, and Mr. Bamber
(who was a witness called by M. Ambatielos at the hearing before
Mr. Justice Hill) stated on oath that the dateswrittenon thbuffslipwere
estimated dates and that in the presence of M. G. E. Ambatielos he
told Major Laing that they were the estimated dates on which the ships
would be delivered.
II. In paragraph 7, Major Laing states that a certain telegram was
sent on the instructions of Sir John Esplen after a meeting of the Com-
mittee of the Ministry of Shipping, and was sent "because the Committee
were becoming worried at the continual delay and Jhey foresaw either
cancellation of the contract or a claim being made against them". This

statement is quite unfounded. According to the eviderice given by Mr.
Bamber al1 telegrams from the Ministry were sent from "Esplen,
Shipminder, London", they were al1 signed by Miss Straker, who ivas
Sir John Esplen's secretary, and the telegram in question was sent on
the instructions eitherof Mr. Bamber or of Major Laing. The statement
that the telegram was sent on Sir John Esplen's instructions after a
meeting of the Shipping Control Committee is faise. The records of the
Comrnittee have been examined, and contain noreference to this telegram.
12. In paragraph 8 Major Laing says that in his letter of July 20th.
1922, to Sir Joseph Maclay he stated that one of the reasons why he
was able tu get M. Ambatielos to pay an extra ~$oo.ooo was "the fact
that guaranteed delivery dates could be assured". This statement is
nntrne. The letter in question contains no reference to guaranteed during the proceetlings on the ground of the privilege of the Crown, and '
1 explained that the only documents which were not disclosed were the
minutes on those fileswritten by officiaisin the Government Departments
concerned. 1 observe with some sururise the statement in u.ra~-.~h II
uf yuiir note tlior it is pii.ciscly tl.; fnct tlint ilicse iiiinutes werc not
~iru~liii~~u(fl ~vliicliyoii coniplniii. 51inlcompl:,int coiild oiily 11ropcrly
bc ni.iile if tlis <;r<:i:kGuvcrniiiciit wcreiii;Ii>ositioiito sliow tli;ittliere
is an obligation on governments, when eigaged in litigation before
their own Courts, to produce the minutes written in the Government
Departments concerned, and in particular that such is the regular
practice of the Greek Government itself.

17. The suggestion in paragraph 14 of your note that the question
whether M. Ambatielos had completely exhausted his legal remedies
in England should be submitted as a preliminary point to an arbitral
tribunal appears to show that your Government do not fully appreckite
the position adopted by His hlajesty's Government on this point. Tlie
fact that M. Ambatielos did not make use of his right of appeal (a point
which was fully dealt with in paragraph 18of my note of Decemher z8tIi)
constitutes a bar to diplomatic action on Lis behalf by theGreekGovern-
ment. But even were it shown that he had in fact exhausted his legal
remedies, the position would still be that the case is not one in which
the Greek Goverilment are entitled to make diplomatic representations
unless they are in a position to show that the decisions of the English
courts constituted a denial ofjustice. The answer to any such suggestion,

if 1 am to understand it as having been made, has been fully given in
this correspondence.
18. In these circumstances, 1 must Say that 1 find nothing in your
note which in any way affects the view taken of this case by His Illajesty's
Government, and 1 can only maintain the attitude adopted in my note
of December z8tli. His Majesty's Government must continue to regard
the matter in question as having been finally disposed of by the decision
of Illr. Justice Hill, against which M. Ambatielos did not appeal ; they
deny that the Greek Govemment are entitled to take up this case as
one proper for diplomatic representations ; and they are not prepared

to submit it to any fom of intemational arbitration, or accept the
suggestion that the question whether M. Ambatielos had exhausted kiis
legal remedies should be submitted to arbitration as a preliminary point.
19. Idesire to ;idd t~iittintrl word iii expl;iii:ition of rlir:attitude u,liicli
His .\l;ijesty's (;t>vernmtnt ridopt iii tliis c;isi:. His \I:i]rjty'j tiovernnient
1i;ivcgi\.cn tlie b~.st posiit~lc proof of their acsepiniicc uf tlii: ~>riiiciple
of iiiti:rri;ttiuii:irbitratioriiii ~>ropt.rcsscs hy sigiiiiig tliz Optiurial
t:l:iiis<gftlie ct:itute of tlic Pt:iin;iii~nt Court of 11iterii:iti~~ii;illiist.ct:
but when thev did so. thev. like. .nv other ~overnments. ëxcludad
s iliîl)iac:<fruin tiicir '~CCC~>~:IIIC~;f the ~~nipiilsiiry j;i"sdiction

of ilie Coiirr. 'l'liiseuclusi~~ii\i.;is unc \r,hicli His .\l:tiestv's C,(i\.criimerit
had an undisputed right to make, and they have irequently.made it
plain that the exclusion was largely due to the fact that they were not
prepared to open the door to a possible revival of old pecuniary claims
arisin..out of the late war..~.rticularlv in relation to matters which
liacl;~lrt!:i<beïn tlie sut>]ectof ci(lecision in the courts of tliis country.
'l'liislias bec11the r~iisistt,nt attitude of His \I:iiesty'j Goveriimcnt and
they are not prepared to depart from it. If an Lnstince were needed toshow the essential reasonableness of this attitude, it is prorided by the
present case, where tlie decision of the English courts was given in the
year ~gzz, but where it was not until more than ten years later that the
case waç for the first time taken up by the Greek Government as being
one in which a diplomatic claim could properly be presented, and a
request made for its submission to international arbitration.
1 bave the honour to be, etc.,
(For tlie Secretary of State),

(Sirlied) [illegible.]
Monsieur Demetrius Caclamanos, etc.

XOTE DU SECRÉTAIRE DES AFFAIRES ETRAKGÈRES
DE GRANDE-BRETAGNE A LA LÉGATION DE GRÈCE
A LONDRES
No. R 3663/169/1g.
I:OJ<EI OGXFICE,S.W.1.

1st July 1936.
Sir,
In your note No. 6o/L/36 of January 2nd last you reverted once more,
on the instructions of your Govemment, to the case of filAmbatielos.
The notes which have been addressed to your predecessor on thissubject
dealt fully with the contentions adranced by the Greek Govemment
and stated clearly the attitude adopted by His hlajesty's Govemment
in the United Kingdom. 1 must Say frankly that 1do not consider that
your note under reply contains any matenal considerations which have
not been fully dealt with inose previous notes, and, to avoid repetitioii
of what has been already said, 1 desire to state that His Majesty's
Government maintain the attitude which they have advanced in the
previous correspondence, in whicha complete answer to the contentions
advanced in your preseiit note is, in their opinion, to be f1propose
accordingly to confine myself to the following observations.
2. Paragraphs z to G of your note constitute yet another attempt
on the part of the Greek Government to argue that by the contract
made with M. Ambatielos the Ministry of Shipping had agreed to effect
delivery at fixed dates. There is no argument in this part of your note
which has not been fully dealt with in the previous correspondence,
and 1 do not desire to repeat what 1 have already said on these points.
was no possible basis for any claim by 31. Ambatielos against theere
Ministry of Shipping) is precisely that ivhich was put by RI.Ambatielos
beforeMr. Justice Hill and was decided by his judgment. The arguments
now advanced in this passage of your note were put before Rlr. Justice
Hill at great length and failed toonvince him. The answer to them is
to be found in the judgment of the Court by which M. Ambatielos had
agreed that the question sliouldbc decided. In these circumstances 1 AIÏNEXES AU MÉMOIRE HELLÉSIQUE (Sj) 123

cannot admit the materiality of a repetition of arguments which have
been fully considered and rejected by the competent tribunal.
3. I will give one instance, simply by way of illustration. In para-
graph 6 of your note another attempt is made to explain away the fact
that no suggestion that the Ministry of Shipping had broken their
contract by failing to deliver the ships on fixed dates was ever made by
or on behalf of M. Ambatielos until Apnl 1921, nearly two years after
the signing of the contract, and that the letters which passed during
that period are impossible to rcconcile with any contention that there
was a contract to deliver tlie ships on fixed dates. This consideration

naturaily figured prominently at the trial, since it isin itself destructive
of M. Ambatielos's contention, and his representatives said al1 that
there was to be said in this connexionon his behalf. The matter was
dealt ivith by MT. Justice Hill in his judgment in the following terms :
"It is foolish to suppose that the defendant had claims for late
delivery running into many hundreds of thousands of pounds and
kept silent about them if they had any foundationin law. It is true
that there are many complaints by the defendant as to delay, and
requests to the Ministry to hurry on the builders. But that is qiiite
consistent with the expectation of deliveries within certain tinies.
Itdoes not prove a contractual obligation. Had there been acontract,

the letters would have been very different. I fiiid that there was
no contract to deliver by times certain."
4. 1 do not therefore propose to comment further upon the first part
of our note. But at the passage which begins at paragraph 8a contention
is put forward uith which I desire to deal in the most explicit tenns.
It is summarized in the sentences which Say that "The failure of
M. Ambatielos to obtain damages in the British courts has been due to the
fact that tlie real facts were not placed before the Court, this being the

result of the way in which the case was presented on belialf of the British
Government", and refer to acts and omissions emanating from the
British Government wliich resulted in the judge not having complete
access to the relevant facts when deciding between the parties. It
is on the basis of tliis contention that the Greek Government have
thought it proper to quote, as being applicable to the present case,
certain statements made in connection with The Hague Conference for
the Codification of International Law, and in particular the following,
that "an erroneoiis legal decision cari engage the responsibility of the
State ...if it is provoked by a procedure so deficieiit as to excludeall
reasonable hope of fair decisions". In fact the suggestion of the Greek
Government now apparently is that the Attorney-General and the
other representatives of the Crown deliberately suppressed material
evidence in the course of the proceedings before Mr. Justice Hiil and
put forward a case which to their knowledge was not in accordance
with the facts.
j. The feeliii: of astonishment with which 1 have read these passages
in your ilote is not diminished by the course of the previous corre-
spondencc. Aiiy suggestion that "the case put forward by the Crow~iat
the trial was not in accordance with the facts", and tliat "itseems

impossible to reconcile the case put forward before MI. Justice Hill with
the contelits" of the letters of July 1922,was first made (ten years after
the trial, and at least eight years after the Greek Government were
9124 AYXEXES AU AIÉAIOIREHELLÉSIQUE (S 5)

aware of the letters in question) in your predecessor's note of August 3rd.
1933. In paragraph 6 of his reply of December 28th. 1933. the then
Secretary of State pointed out that it was apparently suggested "that
information was deliberately withheld from the Court by the Attoriiey-
which they put beforer rhlr. Justice Hill \vas to their knowledge not in
accordance with the facts", and the following passages of that note
dealt very fully and faithfully with that suggestion. In his note in reply
of May 3oth, 1934, M. Caclamaiios stated that "the Greek Government
never intended to siiggest that the Attorney-General or other superior
representatives condncting tlic case for the Crown deliberately withheld
information from the Court or put forward a case which was to their
knowledge not in accordance with the facts". It \\.as explained that
what it \vas intended to convey in the note of August 3rd was that
someone in the Treasury Solicitor's Department who knew of these
letters before the trial had refrained from putting them before counsel.
In paragraph 3 of his note of Xovember 7th. 1934, Sir John Simon
dealt with this revised versioii of the suggestion ; he stated that the
correspondence in question \vas before counsel representing the Crown
and that the case for thc Crown w% prepared in a full knowledge of the
contents of these letters ;lie referred to theexplanationpreviousl)9gi'ven
in his note of December 20th of the attitude which the re reseiitatives
of the Crown have adoptcd throughout on this point, anjthe reasons
which satisfied them tliat tliere was nothing in the correspondence in
question to lead them to inodify their views, and he added :
"In tliese circumstanccs 1 venture to hope that no more will be
heard of the suggestioii whicli 1 regret to find made iii your note
that 'the true facts were either deliberately or accidentally withheld'
from tlie Englisli courts (paragraph2). or that 'the failure to obtain
redress in a municipal court was due to the true facts not having
been brought before the Court as a result of the coiiduct of the
case on behalf of His Mnjesty's Government'. Any sucli suggestion
is totally unfoundcd and 1 repudiate it in the most dcfinite terms
possible."

6. Such having been the course of the previous correspondence, 1
will not attempt to conceal the surprise with which 1 now find that in
your note under reply the suggestion, which on May 3oth, 1934,
M.Caclamanosstated that theGreekGovemment never intended to make, .
is apparently put fosurard as the basis for the contention now advanced
by your Governnieiit. The suggestion that the Attorney-Genercil and
the other representatives of the Crown deliberately suppressed material
facts or put before the Court a case which to their knowledge \vas not
in accordance with the relil fzictsis one whic1ishould not have expected
to he made by any foreign Government, and particularly by the Govern-
ment of a country with which the relations of His hlajesty's Governinent
are, 1 am happy to think, of the best. Once more 1 repudiate any such
suggestion in thc most definite terms possible, and 1 must decline to
discuss the case on the basis of any such suggestion.
that (apart from tlie questioiie'asto whether these letters coiild in any
case have heen regarded as matenal or admissible evidence) it cannot
be disputed (thestatement to the contrary twice made in yoiir note is :\NNEXES AU ~IÉJIOIRE HELLÉXIQUE (S 5) 125

in plain contradiction with what M. Ambatielos swore in his affidavit
which vrasread before the Court of Appeal) that at a date prior to the
hearing before Mr. Justice Hili, M. Ambatielos was aware of the exist-
ence of these letters. since they had been shown to him by Major Laing,
who had even read him part of the contents. Notwithstanding this fact,
not only was no suggestion ever madeon behalf of hl. Ambatielos, either
during thc hearing before Mr. Justice Hill or in the Court of Appeai,
that these letters ought to have been produced by the Crown, but, so
far as the records iiowavailable show, no application was ever made by
him or his advisers for the production of the documents in question.
'This being so the suggestion that tlie non-production of tliese letters
can now be made tlie subject of complaint against His Majesty's Govern-
ment, and still more employed as a foundatiou for the argument in
your note, is one that 1 am at a loss to understand.
8. The notes addressed to your predecessor have dealt fully with the
suggestion that the case put forward by the representatives of the
Crown before hlr. Justice Hill was to their knowledge not in accordance
with the facts, and1 do not desire to reueat what has been alreadv said.
I3ut1 mny point out t1i:itthe e\.idence &;\*ennt tlic tr:iiirplirticiil;irly
the evidence of 11. .\iiihûticlos's u!1,1i\vitiies-ir~.itaptrfecrly plain
tlint throueliuiit the neeotiatioiis tlie SA.iuu-iia Controllcr'î rei>rcic.nt-
provision for delivery at fixed dates. The contention that despite this
persistent refusal the Ministry's representatives did in fact produce
the same result by verbally agreeing that the ships should he delivered
on tliose dates, and that in contending the contrary the representatives
of the hlinistry of Shipping were putting forward a case which to their
knowledge was not in accordance with the facts, is one which 1 find it
diflicult to tûke seriously.
g. As regards the suggestion made on pages 11 and rz of your note
that certain other documents affecting the suit were iiot brought before
the judge by His hlajesty's Government, since the dates written down
on the "buff slip" must have been copied from some document or docu-
ments which have passed between the Ministry and the sliipbuildcrs,
any such suggestion is quite unfounded. The question of the origin of
the dates given on the "buff slip" was fully dealt witli in the evidence
given before hIr. Justice Hill, and it was made perfectly plain that
al1 the dociiments in question had been produced. It was stated in
paragraph 16of the note of December 28th, 1933.that the whole of tlie
correspondence between the Ministry of Shipping and the huilders was
disclosed to II. Ambatielos's solicitors, and whil1 regret that the Greek
Governnient do not appear to accept that statement, the fact cannot
be disputed. Nor is this the only instance in which your note contains
statements which have previously been shown to be not in accordance
with the facts,as forinstance the allcgation that M.Ambatielosattempted
biit fouiid it impossible to cal1hlajor Laing as a witness;this point w:s
dealt with iii paragraph 14 of the note of December 28th, 1933. and
thestatements there made are iiot open to dispute ; 1 may add that it
would have been just as easy for M. Ambatielos to cal1 Major Lairig
as MI. Ramber, who was equally an officialof the Miiiistry of Shippirig
and was called as a witness on behalf of M. Ambatielos.
10. .4s regards the figures as to M. Ambatielos's losses which are
given iii your note, 1 might point out that the statement that theMinistry of Shipping received the sum of ;Egr,ooo over and abave the
contract pnce for the nine vessels is not correct ; tlie amount actually
received \vas in fact less than the contract pnce for the nine vessels by
over ~300,ooo. But the relevancy of the figures in question to thematter
now under discussion is iiot aoureciated. \\'hile His Maiestv's Govern-
ment have never disputed tliat' iie incurred heavy losses,'theAfactis that
M. Ambaticlos (wliose experience of the shipping trade before lie
embarked on thesc exteniive purchases was aicoÏding to his own
evidence of a very liinited rinture) entered into a transaction which he
anticipated would prove extremely profitable to himself ;his expcctatioii
was defeated, largely owing to the slump in the shipping trade whicli
subsequently occurred, and which he, like others,had failed to anticipate.
1 note, however, tliat according to a letter from II. G. Ambatielos which
was read during tlie trial, in 1920 his brother chartered sis of the ships
in question to "first-class American and British finns", and it aas stated
in the letter that :
"We Iiad cvery reason to reckon that these charters ivould yield
to the owner in a year's time a minimum net profit of £goo,ooo.
However. most unfortunately we have had al1these charter-parties
one afteranother cancelled for no earthly reason or excuse wliatever
and we are now suing the charterers for dainages."

1 am not aware of the result of the ~roceedines whiLh M.Amhatielos
tnok .ignliisi thc cli;irici,~rs.but it nould szeiii tli:ir it \v;istliicirciiiii-
stniictctlt:itIii.lt,îst.j iiiiisr I).,iii:iiiiIy..rtriL.ir.is ob\,idus rliar his
tinaiici;il ~>oiitioii\voiild Iin\.c he:ii ver!. ilificifiIir Ii:iIIIf:ict iii clic
coiirsr oi VIIL\..i:1r in;iC1~i.~e:~r~ milll.>i~ mu ri oilt of rlir. cli;irters
liito wliicliIich:iil eiiicrciiircsijcct ufsis luiil\.uf r1.e\.CS~CiIi qut:.itinii.
II. 1 do not propose to- argue further the question whether
M. Ambatielos must be regarded as having failed to cxhaust liis legal
remedies ;the view of His Majesty's Gorernment on this point lias been
stated in pre\.ious notes, and that view they maintain. In any case tliis
point, while iii the view of His hlajesty's Government coiistituting a
prelirninary bar to tlie right of the Greek Government to take up the
case, does not affect the inaiiiissue, and even if it were decided that
aillegal remedies had in fact been eshausted, the positionof His Majesty's
Government as regards the substantial issues in the case would be
unaffected. In tliese circurnstances 1 do not corisider that anv useful
purpose would be served by submitting this preliminary pointuto arbi-
tration, and His Majesty~. Government are not prepared to.ag.ee to
any such course.
12. In point of fact, despite the extent of the correspondence which
has passed, the esseiitial elements of this case are in the view of His
Majesty's Governinent simple. The question which arose betweeri
M. Ambatielos and the Ministry of Shipping was whether the latter had
contracted to deliver him the ships in question at certain fixed dates.
The contract, which was in writing, contained no such provision, and
no such suggestion was ever put fonvard on behalf of M. Ambatielos
until nearly two years after the signature of the contract, when he
was already in difficulties in meeting his obligations to the Ministry. It
was then agreed that this question, instead of being dealt with under
the arbitration clause iii tlie contract, should be tried in the course of
the proceedings before the Admiralty Division which had beeii instituted .INNEXES AU XIÉMOIRE HELLÉSIQUE (S6) 127

by the Board of Trade. It was the subject of a prolonged hearing before
Mr. Justice Hill, who decided against M. Ambatielos's contention, and
the appeal which was entered against this decision was abandoned. No
suggestion that the circumstances justified a request that the matter
should be submitted to international arbitration was macle until ten
years after Mr. Justice Hill's decision had been given. There is no
justification for a request that the decision of the tribunal to whicb
M. Ambatielos agreed to refer his case should now be reopened and
made the subject of international arbitratiop ;His Majesty's Govern-
ment are not prepared to agree to tliis course, and their refusal tu do so
is, if possible, strengthened by the nature of the allegations agairist
the representatives of the Crown which the Greek Government have
seen fit to put forxvard. From that attitude His Majesty's Government
do not propose tu depart.
1 have the honour to be, etc.,
(For the Secretary of State)
(Signedj [illegiblc.]

Monsieur Cliaralambos Simopoulos, etc.

XOTE DU SECRÉT- IRE DES AFFAIRES ETRANGGRES
DE GRANDE-BRET.4GXE A LA LÉGATION DE GRÈCE
A LOXDRES

26th Decemher rg3q.
Sir,
On the 24th November you were so good as to communicate to ine
personally a note dated the zrst November containing a request that
the case ofbIonsieur N. E. Ambatielos should be referred to arbitration
before an international tribunal.
z. In reply 1 have the honour to recall that a similar suggestion uras
made in the note No. 35S/L/33 of the 7th February 1933, addressed by
Monsieur Caclamanos to Sir John Simon. In his note No. C4625/1172/19
of the 29th May, Sir John Simon, after reviewing the facts of the case.
stated that His hfajcsty's Government did not consider that the Greek
Government werecntitled to put forilvardany claim on bchalf of Monsieur
Ambatielos and that they were unable to agree that any such claim
should be submitted to international arbitration.

arguments adduced by the ~reek Government. It ismaterial tu recali
that the events out of which this matter arose occurred in the years
1,,0-22. but that it was not until 1011 that it formed the subiect of
forma1 representations from the ~reek~covernment. ~onsiderablécorre-
spondence has ensued, and the reply to the last representations on the126 ASSEXES AU MÉMOIRE HELLÉSIQUE (S 7)

subject was contained in Mr. Eden's note No. R 3663/169/19 of the
1st July 1936.
4. The note xvhicliyou left with me merely contains a repetition of
aliegations whicli Iiave repeatedly been refuted by His Majesty's Govern-
ment in the course of the previous corresponderice on the subject. The
only new factor is the statement contained in the third paragraph to
the effect that in that correspondence tlie Greek Government have
been able to point iii this case to violations of the Anglo-Greek Treaty
of Commerce and Navigation of the 10th November 1886. 1 am at a
loss to understand the grounds on which tliis statement is based, since
the Greek Legation has any reference been made to the Treaty of 1886.y
or any suggestioii that what had occurred constituted a violation of its
provisions. 1 am unable to accept this belated suggestion and in any
case cau find no foundation for the contention that His Majesty's Govem-
ment can be called upon to agree to arbitration of this claim under the
protocol attached to the Treaty.
j. In the circumstances described above and for the reasons set out
in previous correspondence, 1 have to inform you that His hlajesty's
Government are unable to accede to the request contairied in your present
note.
1 have the Iionour to be, etc.,

(For the Secretary of State)
(Sigqzed)[illegible.]
Monsieur Charalambos Simopoulos, etc.

Annexe S 7

NOTE DU MINISTÈRE DES AFF.4IRES ETRAXGÈRES
DE GRANDE-BRETAGNE A L'AAIBASSADEDE GRÈCE
A LONDRES
(No. R 50z3/14811/19.)
AIDE-MÉMOIRE
In a note of May ~rth, 1949(No. 2775/L/49), His Excellency the Greek
Ambassador stated that no forma1 reply had been received from His
Majesty's Government to the notefromthe GreekEmbassy ofAugust 6th.
1940 (No. 3734/L/40); concerning the case of M. N. E. Ambatielos.
The fact is, however, that, in the course of a conversation at the
Foreign Office on September 23rd, 1940, Sir Orme Sargent officiaily
informed hl. Simopoulos, the Greek .4mbassador at that time, that, as
every argumeiit had been exhanstively discussed in the preceding
correspondence over a number of years terminating with a letter from
Lord Halifax of December aoth, 1939, His Majesty's Government in the
United Kingdom saw no purpose in reopening the correspondence. They
regarded the matter as closed.
This is still the position of His hlajesty's Government and they cannot
conceal their surprise that the Greek Gorernment should have thought
fit toraise this question again.
FOREIGNOFFICE,S.W.I.
July rst, 1949
--