In Re Lau Ko Yuen Tom

HCMP006875/1998

HCMP 6875/98

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 6875 OF 1998

______________

______________

Coram : Deputy Judge W. Wong in Chambers

Dates of Hearing : 4 January 1999

Date of Handing Down Judgment : 8 January 1999

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. This is a fresh or renewed application by Lau Ko Yuen Tom for exemption from serving as a juror for a period of 8 years or for so long as he shall remain a direction of Paul Y - ITC Construction Holdings Ltd. and its subsidiaries. His previous application being HCMP 5664/98 was heard before Burrell J. on 3rd November 1998 and was dismissed.

2. A substantial part of his affidavit in support is just a repetition of his former affidavit. Burrell J. had aptly set out the law and summarised the grounds advanced by him. I am in full agreement with what Burrell J. had set out in his judgment.

3. The new evidence is just to set out in more detail his role, duties and responsibilities as director which are not uncommon with roles of other directors of listed companies.

4. Paul Y Properties Group Ltd. has 9 directors four of which are non-executive directors.

5. Paul Y - ITC Construction Holdings Ltd. has 12 directors of which 7 are non-executive directors.

6. ITC Corporation Ltd. has 10 directors of which 2 are non-executive directors.

7. The Australian listed Downer Group Ltd. has 9 directors of which 8 including himself are non-executive directors.

8. So in effect Mr. Lau is not the only person who is responsible for the day to day running of that group of companies.

9. Lau said he is the Authorized Representative of the 3 listed companies and acts as the principal channel of communication between those companies and the Stock Exchange. He demonstrated the importance of immediate response to enquiries from that regulatory body by exhibiting the Listing Rules and the exchange of 4 letters between his companies and the Stock Exchange. However Rule 3.05 stated that "every issuer shall appoint 2 authorized representatives who shall act at all times as the issuer's principal channel of communication with the Exchange" and 3.06(2) states "to ensure that whenever he is outside Hong Kong suitable alternates are appointed, available and known to the Exchange ..." Apart from him his group of companies has another authorized representative as can be seen from the letters dated 8th October 1998 and 4th November 1998 from the group to the Stock Exchange.

10. Lau said that he is the designated Authorized Signatory under the Buildings Ordinance and certain duties of the Authorized Signatory are non-delegable. To illustrate that he exhibited a letter dated 19th December 1997 issued by the Building Department to all authorized persons, Registered Structural Engineers & Registered General Building contractors concerning implementation of Supervision Plan System as defined in the Building Ordinance respect it was a letter addressed to "all authorized persons ..." not to the Authorized Signatory.

11. To illustrate he worked long hours he had appended to the affidavit 2 entries in the log book of his work.

12. No doubt he occupies a highly responsible position but are his duties non-delegable? What happened when he has to go on business trips? If his duties are non delegable, if nobody apart from him could perform his duties then the business of the group of companies would come to a halt while he is away. This cannot be so.

13. In his previous application he had exhibited his travel record. On 14th May 1998 he was out of town for 8 days on 1st November 1997 he was out of town for 9 days. I take it that nothing unusual happened during his absence. If that be the case why he cannot take a few hours off Monday to Friday to perform his duty as juror if being selected and attend to his duties after court hours.

14. No doubt if he was selected for jury service and his business commitments were such that it would be impossible for him to perform his jury service during that period he can always give reasons and ask to be exempted for that period. But to grant a long term exemption for the reasons he has given, to quote Burrell J., "would amount, in Hong Kong, to there being one law for the very busy and another law for the very very busy"

15. Likewise the application is refused.

Representation:"

Mr. C. Grounds & Ms. Lorinda Luk instructed by M/s W. K. To & Co. for the applicant