MARRAKESH INVESTMENTS LTD v. TANGIERS HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER

MARRAKESH INVESTMENTS LTD v. TANGIERS HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER

Application to appoint an interim receiver was dismissed because the petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficiently clear and solid evidence of a real risk of dissipation or other imminent harm to the economic value of the company that would justify the intrusive and commercially damaging remedy of receivership; the balance of convenience favoured refusal and the alternative injunction was unjustified in light of section 182 and the existing validation order.

Citation
MARRAKESH INVESTMENTS LTD v. TANGIERS HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Petitioner: Marrakesh Investments Limited; 1st Respondent: Tangiers Holdings Limited; 2nd Respondent: Jessop & Baird (Hong Kong) Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 September 2017
Case Number
HCCW352/2016
Procedural Posture
Companies Winding Up Proceedings (hccw 352/2016) / Interim Receivership Summons Heard (application for Interim Receiver/alternative Interim Injunction)
Outcome
Application dismissed; alternative injunction refused; costs awarded against petitioner
Legal Topics
Interim Receivership, Interim Injunction, Validation Order, Costs Orders, Preservation of Assets
Source Language
EN
Company Law Insolvency Civil Procedure Corporate Disputes Interim Receivership Interim Injunction Validation Order Costs Orders +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marrakesh Investments Limited

Petitioner

Tangiers Holdings Limited

1st Respondent

Jessop & Baird (Hong Kong) Limited

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Companies Winding Up Proceedings (hccw 352/2016) / Interim Receivership Summons Heard (application for Interim Receiver/alternative Interim Injunction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a serious risk of dissipation of the companys assets justifying appointment of an interim receiver
  2. 2 Whether balance of convenience favours appointment of receivers given adverse commercial effects
  3. 3 Whether alternative interim injunction should be granted in light of s182 and validation order

Ratio Decidendi

Application to appoint an interim receiver was dismissed because the petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficiently clear and solid evidence of a real risk of dissipation or other imminent harm to the economic value of the company that would justify the intrusive and commercially damaging remedy of receivership; the balance of convenience favoured refusal and the alternative injunction was unjustified in light of section 182 and the existing validation order.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; alternative injunction refused; costs awarded against petitioner

Orders

  • The summons for appointment of an interim receiver is dismissed
  • The alternative application for an interim injunction is refused