Court grants application by Mir over Bula shares

The High Court yesterday granted an application by Mir Oil to indefinitely adjourn the company's bid to lift a court order freezing 74 million ordinary shares in Bula Resources (Holdings) plc.

The decision means that Mr Craig Bond, son of Australian businessman Mr Alan Bond, will not now have to appear before the court tomorrow for the purposes of being questioned about his alleged beneficial ownership of the shares.

Last month, 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 has heard has sworn an affidavit alleging he is the beneficial owner of the shares, attend the hearing for the purposes of being cross-examined. In court yesterday, Mr Martin Hayden, counsel for Mir Oil, asked Mr Justice Kelly to adjourn generally his client's motion to lift the freezing order, imposed by Mr Justice O'Higgins on September 12th last. The order froze almost 74 million ordinary shares held in Bula by two overseas companies until investigators established the identity of their owners.

On December 1st last, Mr Michael Collins SC, for Bula, said the identity of the shares' 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.

At a further hearing last month, 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. Counsel did not object to an adjournment to this month of his application to lift the freezing order.

At the same hearing, 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".

At the same hearing last month, Mr Justice Kelly joined Mr Lyndon McCann as a notice party to the application to lift the freezing order. Mr McCann, a barrister, was appointed by Tanaiste, Ms Mary Harney, last October 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.

In court yesterday, Mr Hayden said he was applying to adjourn generally the motion to lift the freezing order. He said his client did not wish at this stage to proceed with the motion but wanted liberty to re-enter it.

He said the application was a matter of practicality rather than anything else. Proceedings had been initiated by Bula last October against the company's former chairman, Mr Jim Stanley, and Mir Oil Developments Limited, the court was told. Mr Hayden said his client was only furnished with details of the proceedings last month.

Mr Collins, for Bula, said he found the application "most unusual". He said his client had received a letter from Mir's Irish solicitors on January 8th, seeking clarification of certain allegations made by Bula about ownership of the shares and stating that, in the light of the allegations, Mir would not be proceeding with its motion to lift the freezing order.

Mr Collins submitted there was inconsistency between the positions adopted by Mir's Irish and English solicitors and said Mir's motion should be withdrawn, not adjourned.

Mr Shane Murphy, for Mr Lydon McCann, said the inspector would be anxious for the application to proceed but added this concern was in the context of other proceedings. He said the inspector wanted definite clarity of the position being adopted by Mir. The judge awarded Mr McCann his own costs relating to the planned hearing tomorrow and said he would reserve all other costs to the ultimate disposal of the Mir motion.