RE C.A. PACIFIC FINANCE LTD. (in Liquidation)

HCCW 36 & 37/1998

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

COMPANIES WINDING-UP PROCEEDINGS NOS. 36 AND 37 OF 1998

___________

____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1. This is an application by summons by the Official Receiver for an order, first that the transcripts of examination of a number of persons on various dates which had been filed in Court in a sealed envelop be unsealed, and secondly that the Official Receiver's undertaking given to the Court not to serve the originating summons and his report without leave of the Court be lifted.

2. The matter arises as follows. Following the Official Receiver's intention to publicly examine a number of persons under Section 168IA of the Companies Ordinance, an application was made in chambers by Mr Jason Wong But Sit for an adjournment.

3. The reason for the adjournment was primarily that it would be unfair and unjust if the public examination were to take place before the conclusion of his appeal in a criminal matter.

4. The application caused me some concern because in a public examination Mr Wong would be compelled to give evidence whereas in a criminal retrial (if he would be given that by way of his criminal appeal), there would be no obligation on him to give evidence, and he feared that the prosecution would be able to use the evidence given by him (by way of his answers) in the criminal retrial if one be ordered after the criminal appeal.

5. The route that I thought would be the fairest one to take in November 2001 was to order a private examination under Section 221 of the Companies Ordinance. Further to that, the Official Receiver offered an undertaking to the Court to the effect that he would not disclose the contents of the examination of Mr Wong or any documents disclosed by him in such examination to any third party without the prior written consent of Mr Wong or the leave of the Court. This was because it was feared that the Liquidators would make use of those information.

6. As events have now transpired, the application by Mr Wong for leave to appeal against his conviction was dismissed on 27 June 2002. The following day 28 June 2002, the Official Receiver wrote to Mr Wong to enquire whether he would be applying to the Court of Final Appeal for leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal not granting leave to appeal.

7. There was no reply, but in any event under the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, any application for leave to appeal would have to be made within 28 days of the decision of the Court of Appeal. Those 28 days have now elapsed, and therefore one must assume in the absence of any evidence to the contrary that there will be no further appeal by Mr Wong.

8. In those circumstances, I am prepared to make the orders which have been sought by the Official Receiver . Madam Chu has been served but she has not appeared in Court today. Mr Wong has similarly been served but he has also chosen not to appear in Court today. Mr Tang of P C Woo & Co who acts for Mr Dennis Lo has indicated that he has no objection to the Official Receiver's application.

9. Accordingly, I will grant an order that the transcripts of examination of Mr Stephen Wan, Mr Wong Ching Ping, Mr Vincent Hoe, Mr Lam Kwan Wood, Madam Chu King Yee, Mr Dennis Lo and Mr Jason Wong But Sit be unsealed in the Court file. I will further order that the undertaking given by the Official Receiver to the Court be lifted. There will be no order as to costs.