RE C.A. PACIFIC FINANCE LTD. & C.A. PACIFIC SECURITIES LTD.

RE C.A. PACIFIC FINANCE LTD. & C.A. PACIFIC SECURITIES LTD.

The court refused the applicant's request to adjourn and held that a private examination under Section 221 could proceed in chambers because Section 221 is not excluded by Section 168IA and, combined with Rule 62 and the undertakings given, adequately protects the examinee's right to silence and prevents unfair use of compelled evidence in any criminal retrial.

Citation
RE C.A. PACIFIC FINANCE LTD. & C.A. PACIFIC SECURITIES LTD.
Parties
Company in Liquidation: C.A. Pacific Finance Limited (in Liquidation); Company in Liquidation: C.A. Pacific Securities Limited (in Liquidation); Examinee/applicant: Jason Wong But-sit; Examining Authority: Official Receiver
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 November 2001
Case Number
HCCW36/1998
Procedural Posture
Companies Winding Up Proceedings / Chambers Application for Adjournment of Public Examination (interlocutory)
Outcome
Adjournment refused; Section 221 private examination ordered to proceed in chambers
Legal Topics
Winding Up, Public Examination, Private Examination (s.221), Disqualification Proceedings, Use of Evidence in Criminal Trial, Adjournment Pending Appeal, Companies Winding Up Rules
Source Language
EN
Company Law Civil Procedure Criminal Law Evidence Winding Up Public Examination Private Examination (s.221) Disqualification Proceedings +3 more

Case Brief

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C.A. Pacific Finance Limited (in Liquidation)

Company in Liquidation

C.A. Pacific Securities Limited (in Liquidation)

Company in Liquidation

Jason Wong But-sit

Examinee/applicant

Official Receiver

Examining Authority

Procedural Posture

Companies Winding Up Proceedings / Chambers Application for Adjournment of Public Examination (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the public examination should be adjourned pending the applicant's criminal appeal
  2. 2 Whether Section 221 private examination is excluded by Section 168IA
  3. 3 Whether answers given in a compelled examination can be used in a criminal retrial and thereby infringe the right to silence

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused the applicant's request to adjourn and held that a private examination under Section 221 could proceed in chambers because Section 221 is not excluded by Section 168IA and, combined with Rule 62 and the undertakings given, adequately protects the examinee's right to silence and prevents unfair use of compelled evidence in any criminal retrial.

Court Disposition

Adjournment refused; Section 221 private examination ordered to proceed in chambers

Orders

  • Application for adjournment of public examination dismissed
  • Section 221 private examination may proceed in chambers against Mr Jason Wong But-sit