RE UP ENERGY DEVELOPMENT GROUP LTD

RE UP ENERGY DEVELOPMENT GROUP LTD

The court held that a costs‑only appeal pursued separately from the substantive appeal requires leave and the PLs failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success or an error in the Costs Order; the grounds had been considered and rejected by the court, therefore leave to appeal was refused and the summons dismissed.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 3818
Parties
Petitioner: Petitioner; Joint Provisional Liquidators: Joint Provisional Liquidators of Up Energy Development Group Limited; Company: Up Energy Development Group Limited; Opposing Creditor: Integrated Capital (Asia) Limited; Opposing Creditor: China Minsheng Banking Corp., Ltd.; Opposing Creditor: Hao Tian Development Group Limited; Supporting Creditor: Credit Suisse AG, Singapore Branch; Official Receiver: Official Receiver
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 December 2022
Case Number
HCCW91/2016
Procedural Posture
Companies (winding‑up) Proceedings (section 327 Cap 32) / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Costs Order; Decision on Summons
Outcome
Summons dismissed; leave to appeal against the Costs Order refused.
Legal Topics
Costs Order, Leave to Appeal, Winding‑up Proceedings, Jurisdiction
Source Language
EN
Company Law Civil Procedure Appeals Costs Costs Order Leave to Appeal Winding‑up Proceedings Jurisdiction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Petitioner

Petitioner

Joint Provisional Liquidators of Up Energy Development Group Limited

Joint Provisional Liquidators

Up Energy Development Group Limited

Company

Integrated Capital (Asia) Limited

Opposing Creditor

China Minsheng Banking Corp., Ltd.

Opposing Creditor

Hao Tian Development Group Limited

Opposing Creditor

Credit Suisse AG, Singapore Branch

Supporting Creditor

Official Receiver

Official Receiver

Procedural Posture

Companies (winding‑up) Proceedings (section 327 Cap 32) / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Costs Order; Decision on Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal is required for a costs‑only appeal where a separate substantive appeal by another party is extant
  2. 2 Whether the applicants satisfied the threshold to obtain leave to appeal (reasonable prospect of success/error of law/fact/plain wrong)
  3. 3 Whether the joint provisional liquidators are entitled to recover their costs from the assets of the company

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that a costs‑only appeal pursued separately from the substantive appeal requires leave and the PLs failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success or an error in the Costs Order; the grounds had been considered and rejected by the court, therefore leave to appeal was refused and the summons dismissed.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed; leave to appeal against the Costs Order refused.

Orders

  • Summons dated 6 July 2022 dismissed.
  • Costs nisi: (1) costs of and occasioned by the Summons to be paid by the PLs to the Petitioner, to be taxed if not agreed with certificate for two counsel; (2) the PLs are not entitled to recover their costs from the assets of the Company.