由此 - 20 - A B C similar principles in Chen Li Hung and Another v Ting Lei Miao and Others [2000] 3 HKCFAR 9, relying on: “… the passage in Lord Wilberforce’s speech in Carl Zeiss Stiftung v. Rayner & Keeler Ltd (Authority to Insitute Proceedings: Issue Estoppel [1967] 1 AC 853 at p.954 C-E where he famously said: D E ‘In the United States some glimmerings can be found of the idea that non-recognition cannot be pressed to its ultimate logical limit, and that where private rights, or acts of everyday occurrence, or perfunctory acts of administration are concerned (the scope of these exceptions has never been precisely defined) the courts may, in the interests of justice and common sense, where no consideration of public policy to the contrary has to prevail, give recognition to the actual facts or realities found to exist in the territory in question. These ideas began to take shape on the termination of the Civil War (see United States v. Insurance Companies (1875) 89 US 99), and have been developed and reformulated, admittedly as no more than dicta, but dicta by judges of high authority, in later cases.’” per Bokhary PJ at page 17J. F G H I J K L 62. One common feature of the “state necessity doctrine” is that: “… the laws saved by the application of the doctrine not impair the rights of the citizens guaranteed by the constitution.” page 31. M N P B C D E F G H I J K L M N 63. O A We recognise, as was recognised in the Manitoba Language case, that this feature of the doctrine of state necessity is not satisfied in the present case. We agree with the statement in the Manitoba Language case O P at 31 that: Q R Q “… Nonetheless, the necessity cases on insurrectionary governments illustrate the more general proposition that temporary effect can be given to invalid laws where this is necessary to preserve the rule of law.” R S S T T U U V V