TNAG-2754-FCO40-3971-Business-matters-in-Hong-Kong-acquisition-of-Midland-Bank-by-1993 — Page 42

(TUE)06. 29'93 10:45/ST. 09:51/NO. 3560581446 P 5/7

07-JUN-1993 12:23

LEGOL DEPT

+852 869 2962

P.05

J

B

C

P

G

H

L

M

Z

$

.3-

"

procedure to be followed by the United States Authorities would be to alle letters of request made pursuant to 1.78 773 of the Evidmcs Oridinance, Cap.8. I was not told what has happened in the proceedings in New York after the filing of the brief, bur approximately 10 months later the United States Authorities commenced the letter of request procedure.

provisions :-

The Evidence Ordinance, Cap.8 has inter alis the following

*75. Where an application is made to the High Cour for en order for evidence to be obtained in Hong Kong and the Court is satisfied-

(a) that the application is made in pursuance of a request Issued by or on behalf of a court or tribunal (the 'requarting court) exercising jurisdication in a country or territory outside Hong Kong: and

(b) that lie evidence to which the applicuina relates is to be obtained for the purposes of divů proceedings which either have been instituted before the requesting court se WHOSE institution before that cowi is conteinplated.

the High Court shall have the powers conferred on it by this Pars

775. (1) The provisions of sections 75, 76 and 77 shall have effect in relation to the omaining of evidence for the purposes of oriúnai proceedings as they have effect in relazion so the obtaining of évidence for the purposes of civil proceedings except that -

(«) section 75(b) shall apply only to proceedings which forve fourt bustituted or whose institution is likely if the evidence is 'chained; and

(b) so order under section 76 shall make provision otherwise than for the pumination of witrasts, either orally or in writing, or for the production of dommerts.

(Z) In its application by virtue of subsection (1).

section 77(1)(a) and (b) shall have effect as if for the words 'civil processing' there were substituted the words "criminal proceedings."

Mr Stone, who appears on behalf of the intervener, first argues that Keith, J. did not have power to make the order of the 29th December 1992 as the provisions of the Evidence Ordinance relating to leners of request had not been complied with.

*'.