由此 A B - 3 hearing before Yam J on 24 August 2005. The judge generously gave Emperor time to file an affidavit containing appropriate particulars. An A B affidavit has been filed, but sensibly Mr Houghton did not rely on it as it took C D the matter no further. Ms Fan asserted that she had no knowledge as to how the e-mail came into the possession of China Everbright. There is no C D explanation as to whether inquiries were made of China Everbright, nor why E F they have not made, or been asked to make, an affidavit setting out the circumstances in which they received the e-mail. There is thus no evidential E F basis whatsoever to suggest that either SBI or Mr Jook were responsible for G any re-publication in Hong Kong or Macau or elsewhere. H H 5. I J G In her first affidavit Ms Fan asserted to being told of rumours in the market to the same effect as the e-mail. The circumstances of the rumours were referred to in her second affidavit, but that took those I J circumstances no further. Having regard to the fact that the e-mail followed K L a publication in the China Morning Post of factual information referred to in the e-mail, it is not at all surprising that there were rumours in the market. K L However, again, there is no suggestion in the affidavit that those rumours M M were in any way attributable to either SBI or Mr Jook. N N 6. Emperor is a Hong Kong company. Its business and corporate O O headquarters are in Hong Kong. SBI is a Hong Kong company. Mr Jook P Q R S lives in Hong Kong. The only evidence establishing publication of the e-mail is that it was published in Singapore. 7. The matter came before the Master on 15 July 2005, and an order was made staying the proceedings on the ground of forum non P Q R S conveniens. From that decision Emperor now appeal. T T U U V V