SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. MANDARIN RESOURCES CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHER

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. MANDARIN RESOURCES CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHER

Burrell J properly exercised his discretion under the Official Languages Ordinance and Rules by finding the appellant was sufficiently proficient in English and that ordering translation of approximately 50 box files would cause disproportionate delay and cost contrary to the paramount consideration of just and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. MANDARIN RESOURCES CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHER
Parties
Petitioner: Securities and Futures Commission; 1st Respondent: Mandarin Resources Corporation Limited; 2nd Respondent (appellant): The Honourable Chim Pui Chung
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 March 1999
Case Number
CACV45/1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (court of Appeal) Arising From Winding Up Petition / Hearing and Judgment on Appeal From HCCW 348 of 1996; Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Use of Language Rules, Translation of Court Documents, Judicial Discretion, Official Languages Ordinance, Winding Up Petition
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Language Rights Use of Language Rules Translation of Court Documents Judicial Discretion Official Languages Ordinance Winding Up Petition

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Securities and Futures Commission

Petitioner

Mandarin Resources Corporation Limited

1st Respondent

The Honourable Chim Pui Chung

2nd Respondent (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (court of Appeal) Arising From Winding Up Petition / Hearing and Judgment on Appeal From HCCW 348 of 1996; Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in refusing an order to translate English documents into Chinese
  2. 2 Proper application of Rule 3(1) High Court Civil Procedure (Use of Language) Rules (paramount consideration of just and expeditious disposal)
  3. 3 Effect and relevance of Rule 5(1) time limit for requesting translation

Ratio Decidendi

Burrell J properly exercised his discretion under the Official Languages Ordinance and Rules by finding the appellant was sufficiently proficient in English and that ordering translation of approximately 50 box files would cause disproportionate delay and cost contrary to the paramount consideration of just and expeditious disposal; absent misdirection or plain error the exercise of discretion is upheld, so refusal to order blanket translation was correct.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Order of Burrell J refusing translation of the case documents upheld