THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER v. CHAN HAY MUK AND OTHERS

HCMP 4754/2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 4754 OF 2002

____________

____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1. This is the second application by the Official Receiver for extension of time under section 168I(2) of the Companies Ordinance, Cap. 32 to commence proceedings for disqualification orders against the four former directors of South View Holdings Ltd ("the Company").

2. On 19 December 2002, I made an order granting an extension of time of six months from the date of the order. The time within which the Official Receiver should commence proceedings for disqualification orders would have expired on 20 November 2002, being four years beginning with the day on which the winding-up of the Company is deemed to have been commenced.

3. I refer to my judgment on 19 December 2002 to the reasons why an extension of time was sought and granted.

4. In the present application, the Official Receiver seeks a further extension of time for six months from the date of the order.

5. I understand from Miss Lee who appears for the Official Receiver that it is not anticipated that a further extension of time would be required after the second extension. What happened after I had granted the first extension of time is as follows.

6. On 23 January 2003, Mr Chan Hay Muk and Mr Choi Tsz Keung, the 1st and 3rd respondents herein, were publicly examined. They gave evidence that Mr Chan Hon Wing and Mr Lam Ming Chi, the 2nd and 4th respondents herein, were responsible for the running of the Company. The 2nd and 4th respondents had failed to attend the public examination on 23 January 2003.

7. A warrant of arrest was issued against the 2nd respondent and was executed on 28 March 2003. The 2nd respondent was publicly examined on 23 May 2003. His public examination was adjourned part heard to a date to be fixed.

8. As for the 4th respondent, the Official Receiver has not been able to contact him up to 23 May 2003. Although a warrant of arrest has been issued, it has not been executed. On 23 May 2003, the 4th respondent contacted the Official Receiver's office by telephone and indicated that he is prepared to return to Hong Kong to attend his public examination. He also provided his contact address and telephone number. The Official Receiver has fixed a date for the public examination of the 4th respondent and that is 17 September 2003.

9. Progress has been made in the investigation by the Official Receiver but has not been completed. In view of the outstanding matters, the Official Receiver is not in a position to form a view whether it would be in the public interest to commence proceedings for disqualification orders against the four respondents.

10. In view of the progress made so far and the public examination of the respondents has yet to be completed, it would be appropriate to grant a further extension of time for six months. I make an order in terms of paragraphs 1 to 3 of the summons.