A
Bi
Ci
D
E
F
G
H
that the evidence-gathering proceedings in Malaysia were
invalid. On 6th January 1990 that application for a
declaration by Mr. Osman was struck out. Mr. Osman then
appealed to the Supreme Court of Malaysia against that
decision and his appeal was only dismissed on 6th March 1991, the result being that the stay granted on 6th September 1988 effectively prevented any evidence being collected in Malaysia
pursuant to the order of 26th April 1988.
There were
It is true that the Government of Hong Kong sought to
appeal against the grant of the stay and never pursued that
appeal. However this is readily understandable.
difficulties involved in such an appeal, bearing in mind that there was initially an extant application by Mr. Osman
suggesting that the whole proceedings were invalid and
subsequently an appeal in connection with that application.
It would be difficult to determine whether or not the stay
should be removed until the outcome of those proceedings were
known and, furthermore, there was the problem that the order
which was stayed was also under appeal so the validity of that
order itself would not be known.
It is, however, correct to say that the appeal which was
outstanding against 26th April 1988 could have been the subject of an application for expedition but no application for such expedition was made either by Mr. Osman or by the
Government of Hong Kong.
The explanation for the third letter of request appears
22