The High Court yesterday ordered that Mr Craig Bond, son of Australian businessman Alan Bond, appear before the court next month for the purposes of being questioned about his alleged beneficial ownership of almost 74 million ordinary shares in Bula Resources (Holdings) plc.
Mr Justice Kelly fixed January 14th as the date for hearing of an application by Mir Oil for the lifting of an order freezing the shares.
He directed that Mr Craig Bond, whom the court heard has sworn an affidavit alleging he is the beneficial owner of the shares, attend the hearing for the purposes of being cross-examined about his claim.
He refused an application by Mr Martin Hayden, counsel for Mir Oil, to be permitted to crossexamine Mr Patrick Mahony, a director of Bula Resources.
On September 12th last, Mr Justice O'Higgins imposed an order freezing almost 74 million ordinary shares held in Bula by two overseas companies until investigators established their ownership. On December 1st last, Mr Michael Collins SC, for Bula, said the identity of the owner remained unclear.
Mr Justice Kelly found the information relating to ownership which was supplied by Mir Oil did not conform with the statutory requirements and he continued the order freezing the shares. He granted Mr Hayden liberty to apply to lift the order if Bula was provided with the necessary information.
In court yesterday, Mr Hayden submitted that the information furnished now complied with the statutory requirements. He said Bula was still questioning the adequacy of the information supplied and he wanted to know exactly what additional information the company was seeking.
It might be that all the matters of concern to Bula could be answered straight away, counsel said. He added that Mr Bond was available and willing to attend in court.
Mr Hayden also applied to be allowed cross-examine Bula director Mr Patrick Mahony in relation to two newspaper interviews given by Mr O'Mahony.
He added that both sides were in agreement on how the matter should proceed and he was not objecting to an adjournment to January of his application to to lift the shares freezing order.
Mr Collins, for Bula, said he was not satisfied with the answers received from Mr Craig Bond regarding ownership of the Bula shares. He said Mr Bond was claiming he was the beneficial owner of the shares but had not produced a single document to show that. It was not stated when the stock transfer form was executed, he said.
Counsel said there must be a full and complete answer to the questions raised by Bula concerning the ownership of the shares. He said there was no adequate explanation provided for conflicting information concerning that ownership.
He wished to cross-examine Mr Craig Bond to "get to the truth of this matter".
Mr Shane Murphy said he was notifying the court, out of courtesy, that he was observing proceedings on behalf of Mr Lyndon McCann, a barrister. Last October Mr McCann was appointed by the Tanaiste, Ms Mary Harney, as an inspector to investigate the membership of Bula Resources and to decide who had been financially interested in the success or failure of that company or who was able to control or materially influence company policy.
Mr Collins applied to the court for Mr McCann to be joined as a notice party to the present application and Mr Justice Kelly consented to that application.
The judge said it was clear that the single issue to be decided at this point was whether Mir Oil had complied with its statutory obligations in relation to the information supplied regarding ownership of the Bula shares.
Bula had submitted it was unhappy with a number of matters, he said. It was claiming Mr Craig Bond had not demonstrated locus standi in the matter and also claimed that a stock transfer form had not been exhibited. It was also claiming it was entitled to a full and complete account of the movement of the shares and also sought an order requiring the attendance of Mr Craig Bond for the purpose of cross-examination.
Mr Justice Kelly said he would fix January 14th next as the date for hearing of Mir's application to lift the shares freezing order. He would also make an order requiring the attendance of Mr Bond at that hearing.
The judge said he would not make an order for the attendance of Mr Patrick Mahony. He said this would involve revisiting material on which the court had already adjudicated and which had no relevance to the issue.
