RE TECHWIN ELECTRONIC LTD

HCCW 299/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

COMPANIES (WINDING-UP) NO. 299 OF 2000

____________

____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.  I have before me a summons taken out by the Official Receiver seeking an order that Mr Cheung Ngam Lam is to sign a transcript of his public examination within 14 days hereof.

2.  On 8 and 12 March 2004, there was a public examination of Mr Cheung conducted by the Official Receiver before Sakrhani J.  A solicitor appeared for Mr Cheung on that occasion.  The public examination was conducted in English, with interpretation of the answers given by Mr Cheung in Chinese.

3.  On 15 March 2004, the Official Receiver wrote to Mr Cheung’s solicitors requesting Mr Cheung to sign the record of the public examination after the same had been read to him, pursuant to section 168IA(8) of the Companies Ordinance, Cap. 32.  The solicitors were asked to indicate if Mr Cheung would require the record of examination to be read to him in Chinese and if so the Official Receiver would arrange for interpretation by a Chinese Language Officer of the Official Receiver’s Office.

4.  On 31 March 2004, Mr Cheung himself wrote to the Official Receiver in English making two requests.  Firstly, he asked for a copy of the transcript of the examination in Chinese.  Secondly, he asked to be provided a copy of the English transcript for his perusal before signing, as he envisaged he would not have sufficient time to read and understand the transcript in a single visit to the Official Receiver’s office. 

5.  The transcript which is in English (as the public examination was conducted in English) was duly provided by the Official Receiver to Mr Cheung on 6 April 2004.  Again, Mr Cheung was asked to contact the Official Receiver to arrange an appointment with a Chinese Language Officer, if he should require the transcript to be read over to him in Chinese.

6.  Between 14 April 2004 and 14 June 2004, Mr Cheung himself wrote to the Official Receiver on 3 occasions in English setting out what he alleged to be “serious errors” in some of his answers as recorded in the transcript.  For the purpose of the application today, Mr Cheung has made a written reply again in English to the Official Receiver’s second report.  This was filed on 11 October 2004.  In his reply, he stated that he has not signed the transcript because the transcript contained “serious errors in interpretation”.  Further, as he has not been provided with the Chinese transcript or a recording of the public examination, the “seriousness and extent of the errors cannot be ascertained” without reference to either the Chinese transcript or the tape recording.

7.  In his reply, Mr Cheung identified 7 “serious” errors in the transcript and 3 “other” interpretation errors.  It seems to me that the errors identified by Mr Cheung, if they were errors, are not errors in the English transcript but errors in interpretation.  There is nothing to indicate to me that the shorthand writer appointed under rule 60 of the Companies (Winding-Up) Rules in the public examination has not faithfully and accurately taken down the questions put to Mr Cheung in English and the answers of Mr Cheung as interpreted in English.

8.  Mr Cheung has confused the errors in interpretation with the errors in the transcript.  If indeed he wishes to challenge the correctness of the questions or the answers as interpreted to him in the public examination when the Official Receiver is to adduce the transcript in his disqualification proceedings, Mr Cheung may of course do so, subject to the leave of the court hearing that application.  And for that purpose, I think he should be provided with a copy of the tape recording of the public examination on 8 and 12 March 2004.  As for the transcript of the public examination, there is no reason why he should not sign it. 

9.  I therefore order Mr Cheung to sign the transcript of the public examination held on 8 and 12 March 2004 within 7 days hereof.  I further direct that a tape recording of the public examination held on the dates aforesaid be released to Mr Cheung. 

10.  As the Official Receiver has indicted that he would also like a copy of the tape recording for reference, in case any challenge should be made by Mr Cheung of the correctness of the interpretation, I also order a copy of the tape recording to be provided to the Official Receiver. 

11.  The directions I give for providing a copy of the tape recording of the public examination to each of Mr Cheung and the Official Receiver are upon their respective undertakings that each would bear the costs of the provision of the tape recording. 

12.  As for the costs of this application, I see no reason why the costs should not be borne by Mr Cheung.  The Official Receiver has to come to court to obtain an order that he should sign the transcript of the examination.

13.  I order Mr Cheung to pay the Official Receiver’s costs of this application forthwith.  I assess the Official Receiver’s costs on a gross sum basis at $8,000.