Public examination of a company officer may proceed despite pending misfeasance proceedings, absent a legal basis to defer it.

Public examination of a company officer was not displaced by the pendency of misfeasance proceedings. The court held that earlier English authorities did not control because they concerned different factual settings, including examination of third parties and situations where discovery had already been obtained or refused in pending litigation. Repeated applications by the liquidators supported the order, and the delay arose from objections raised on behalf of the appellant. The existence of misfeasance proceedings did not give the appellant a right to avoid examination, and the later posting of those proceedings did not justify interference with the order. The direction for public examination was therefore maintained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the court should postpone or vacate the order directing public examination of a company officer because misfeasance proceedings were pending.

Analysis: The power to order public examination was not displaced merely because a misfeasance application had been filed. The earlier English decisions concerned materially different situations, including examination of third parties and cases where discovery had already been obtained or refused in pending litigation. Here, the liquidators had repeatedly sought the examination, and the delay in holding it was attributable to objections raised on behalf of the appellant. The existence of misfeasance proceedings did not create a right in the appellant to avoid public examination, and the order posting those proceedings after the examination did not furnish a ground for interference.

Conclusion: The order directing public examination was properly made and was not liable to be set aside or postponed further.

---