"inappropriate'' and "grossly improper''.

That position was taken before the Privy Council in London adjourned to consider a ruling in the EMLICO dispute.

The Privy Council was hearing an appeal over three days this week brought by EMLICO reinsurer, Kemper Re, against the Minister of Finance and the Registrar of Companies.

Kemper had been given Supreme Court permission by Justice Ground to seek judicial review of the regulatory decisions taken by the Registrar and the Minister that allowed EMLICO to incorporate as a Bermuda company here in 1995.

That permission was later set aside by Justice Wade. Kemper appealed to the Court of Appeals, which ruled that they could not hear such an appeal.

Undeterred, Kemper took the matter to the Privy Council in London, where the Law Lords entertained three days of oral arguments that concluded yesterday.

Early on, one of the five-member panel insisted that a stenographer be employed to record the hearings to ensure that a Massachusetts federal judge would have a direct transcript of the proceedings.

But an ex parte decision taken by Chief Justice Austin Ward on January 9, which has been touted by EMLICO's Bermuda liquidators as an affirmation of the company's status as a Bermuda company, and their status as its liquidator, faced criticism from the panel.

Lord Browne-Wilkinson said that the order was only of interest within the liquidation. He said that the London court would attach no weight to an ex parte view. The court attached no importance to the order, because it came in the absence of representations from opposing sides. Lord Hoffmann said use of it in a Massachusetts court would be "propaganda'', but not law.

The court seemed surprised that the ruling was made by the Bermuda court, without hearing from the interested parties, and stated that the question of whether EMLICO was a Bermuda company would have to eventually be resolved in court with all sides represented.

The Law Lords said that the Bermuda Court's January 9 order, has no effect and meant nothing outside the actual liquidation.

The Privy Council also expressed some criticism of the several days it took Justice Wade to accept the liquidators' application to have Kemper's leave set aside.

The court further expressed surprise that EMLICO's liquidators appeared to take sides in the dispute, when they should have distanced themselves from the disagreement between the reinsurers and EMLICO's founder General Electric, and remained neutral.

COURTS CTS