XN000022-1984-01-11 — Page 8

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 11, 1984

+THE FINAL SANCTION OF IMPRISONMENT UNDER THE BILL IS HOWEVER CONFINED TO JUDGMENT DEBTORS WHO WILFULLY REFUSE TO PAY A JUDGMENT FOR MONEY OR WHO KNOWINGLY CONTRAVENE A PROHIBITION ORDER.+

WHERE THERE IS A CLAIM BUT AS YET NO JUDGMENT, THE ABSCONDING DEFENDANT MAY BE STOPPED WHERE THERE IS A CLAIM AGAINST HIM FOR MONEY, OR DAMAGES, OR THE DELIVERY OF ANY PROPERTY OR THE PERFORMANCE OF ANY OTHER ACT.

+THIS REMEDY WILL BE AVAILABLE AGAINST ALL WHO ARE ORDINARILY RESIDENT IN HONG KONG, OR CARRY ON BUSINESS HERE, OR WHO INCURRED THE LIABILITIES IN HONG KONG WHILE PRESENT IN HONG KONG, MR SWAINE SAID.

+THE AREA OF IMMUNITY HAS BEEN CUT DOWN SHARPLY FROM THAT ENVISAGED WHEN THE BILL WAS FIRST BEFORE COUNCIL, AND THE NET WILL CATCH ALL SAVE THE GENUINE VISITOR WHO DOES NOT HIMSELF ENGAGE A LIABILITY WHILE IN HONG KONG, HE ADDED.

THE PROHIBITION ORDER IS INITIALLY GOOD FOR ONE MONTH BUT MAY BE RENEWED FOR A TOTAL OF NOT MORE THAN THREE MONTHS.

UNDER THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, THE PERSON SO PROHIBITED MAY APPLY TO THE COURT FOR THE ORDER TO BE DISCHARGED.

IN THE CASE OF A DEFENDANT AGAINST WHOM THERE IS A CLAIM BUT AS YET NO JUDGMENT, HE MAY HAVE THE PROHIBITION ORDER DISCHARGED ON SHOWING TO THE COURT THAT HE HAS A SUBSTANTIAL DEFENCE TO THE CLAIM.

IF THE CLAIMANT APPLIES FOR A PROHIBITION ORDER ON INSUFFICIENT GROUNDS OR KEEPS IT GOING AFTER IT WAS NO LONGER REQUIRED, HE IS LIABLE TO PAY COMPENSATION TO THE AGGRIEVED DEFENDANT.

+THIS AGAIN EXEMPLIFIES THE BILL'S AIM TO STRIKE THE RIGHT BALANCE AS BETWEEN THE CLAIMANT AND DEFENDANT, MR SWAINE SAID.

SIMILAR PROVISIONS ARE MADE FOR CASES WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT.

MR SWAINE THANKED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S CHAMBERS FOR HAVING THE BILL, TOGETHER WITH ALL PROPOSED AMENDMENTS THEN CURRENT, PUBLISHED IN A SPECIAL SUPPLEMENT OF THE GAZETTE ON DECEMBER 23, 1983 FOR INFORMATION.

HE SAID THAT THIS HAD GREATLY ASSISTED THE UNOFFICIALS WORK ING GROUP AS WELL AS INTERESTED PARTIES.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE HON MICHAEL THOMAS SAID THAT THE BILL, AS AMENDED, WOULD PROVIDE A REASONABLE AND JUST SOLUTION+ TO THE PROBLEM OF RECONCILING THE PROTECTION OF CREDITORS WITH THE AVOIDANCE OF UNJUSTIFIED IMPRISONMENT.

I BELIEVE