JADEMAN (HOLDINGS) LTD AND OTHERS v. TONY WONG CHUN LOONG AND OTHERS

-----------

------------------

JUDGMENT

------------------

Sir Derek Cons, V.P.:

1. This is an appeal from the decision of Jones, J., of the 11th May this year, whereby he declined to entertain an application by the 1st Defendant to vary orders which he had continued on the 10th April, the orders having originally been made by Barnes, J., in February this year. One of the variations requested below has been overtaken by events. All that is live now is a variation to allow the 1st Defendant to engage Price Waterhouse to sort out a number of documents in order to comply with the discovery aspect of the orders in question.

2. The background of the case is fully dealt with in our judgment in Appeal No. 71 of 1990, which we gave this morning. That judgment also contains our view of the law.

3. In his own judgment Jones, J., appears at one stage to have taken the same view as we do, but having regard to what he says at the conclusion of his judgment (p. 160 of the Appeal Bundle) it seems to me that he in fact maintains the same position that he took earlier and which we respectfully take to be incorrect. Thus he makes the same mistake as he did before. He failed to exercise his discretion whether to entertain the application or not.

4. In that circumstance it is for this Court to do so. For my part, having regard to the situation in which Mr. Wong found himself, I think it right that the application should be entertained and dealt with on its merits. I would therefore make a similar order to that we made in the earlier appeal this morning allowing the appeal in part and remitting the proceedings back to the judge below to determine whether or not there should be a variation, and if so, the extent thereof.

Kempster, J.A.:

5. I agree.

Sears, J.:

6. I agree.