Coram: Hon Litton V-P, Ching JA and Keith J in Court
Date of hearing: 24 June 1997
Date of judgment: 24 June 1997
Litton V-P giving the judgment of the Court:
1. We deal with the costs as follows:
Leave to appeal to Privy Council
2. We will now deal with the application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council.
3. There is before us an application made under Rule 2(b) of the 1909 Privy Council Rules for leave to appeal to Her Majesty in Councilin relation to a judgment we gave on 28 May this year. By that judgment we discharged an order of Rogers J who had struck out a winding-uppetition brought by the 1st appellant Mr Ng Yat-chi, an undischarged bankrupt. The effect of our judgment is that the petition broughtby him can now proceed, and likewise the petition for relief brought under s168A of the Companies Ordinance, Cap 32.
4. Obviously if our judgment be right then the sooner the matter proceeds to trial the better. At the end of the day the judgment wegave on 28 May turned upon a narrow compass, namely: is it right in the circumstances of the case that the 1st Appellant be permittedto seek relief in the companies’ court?
5. Mr Poon QC argues that the disclaimer by the trustee-in-bankruptcy of the 1st Appellant’s interest in the shares was in law effectiveand, having disclaimed, this deprived the 1st Appellant of his capacity to bring proceedings against the company.
6. That, as we see it, is a well identified point; if their Lordships conclude that the point merits further consideration, beyond theanalysis to which it has already been subjected in our judgments, they can give special leave. We bear in mind that ultimately whatwe were concerned with was an interlocutory appeal and expedition in these circumstances is an important factor.
7. We decline the application for leave.
Mr Ng Yat Chi & Mr Choy Bing Wing, Petitioners (Appellants) in person
Mr Winston Poon QC. (M/S Kao, Lee & Yip) for the Respondents (Respondents)
Mr M.K. Tam of Official Receivers’ Office (Appearing only as OR in CWU 321/96)