IT WAS MARCH last year when administrators arrived on the scene to protect the assets of vanished tycoon Teddy Wang Teh-huei. The father of the former Chinachem boss, Wang Din-shin, had slapped Nina Wang Kung Yu-sum with a writ and sought the help of partners from PricewaterhouseCoopers and Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu to keep an eye on the estate pending the outcome of a bitter probate case. A story was published in this paper after the relevant court hearing to formalise the appointments, and the next day this reporter received a phone call from one of Ms Wang's lawyers. Who was the source of this story? The case had been heard in chambers - behind closed doors - and was supposedly barred from the public domain, the lawyer claimed. The lawyer's request for information was refused and he never called again. Judging by the first few days of the actual probate hearing - the case began in the High Court on Monday and is not short of juicy allegations - it is perhaps understandable for Ms Wang to be wary of publicity. She almost got her way when trial judge Mr Justice David Yam - so far without giving any reasons - ordered that the probate case be heard in chambers. This was subsequently quashed at the Court of Appeal and the case is in full swing. We have another 27 juicy days to go. At last. The Teddy Wang case has been plodding through the courts in various forms over the years - including the bid to declare his death after he was kidnapped more than nine years ago - but it has all been behind closed doors. It is not the only far-reaching commercial legal wrangle to be held in secret over the past few years. Remember the battle over Sally Aw Sian's stake in Sing Tao - eventually awarded to Lazard Asia? Another private hearing. You can walk into the High Court tomorrow and hear a five-year-old recount a harrowing tale of abuse, yet the vast majority of civil disputes in Hong Kong remain closed to the public. These can range from summary judgments on share disputes to scrutiny of hefty legal bills for a liquidation. The majority of cases will be settled before actually going to trial yet we rarely hear the result. This surely does not fit well with Hong Kong's recent quest for transparency and accountability in the corporate world. Not to mention a consistent and comprehensive scrutiny of the judiciary and all its functions. It was not supposed to be this way - a radical plan to open the courts had not been implemented. At the same time, the sanctity of chambers procedures is 'illusory', according to the protagonists for change, the Working Party on Civil Proceedings Conducted in Private. This judicial think-tank recommended the opening up of chambers hearings to the public as long ago as 1997. The think-tank concluded that a practice of direction to keep the contents of chambers hearings from the public needed overhauling. 'Information may be placed in the public domain if at least one party so wishes,' the group noted. It also made the crucial point: 'Effectively, the supposed privacy of the proceedings is in the control of the parties, not the court.' The upshot is that it is up to one media-friendly party to give you a snippet of the proceedings, otherwise you are pretty much in the dark. You won't be jailed for publishing the information - unless the judge has so ordered - nor will the lawyer be in contempt for passing it along. It does not smack of being the most effective dissemination of information, the cornerstone of a fair and open market. Jake van der Kamp is on holiday
