TZU SHIN SHIH v. EXTRA EXCEL INTERNATIONAL LTD. AND OTHERS

TZU SHIN SHIH v. EXTRA EXCEL INTERNATIONAL LTD. AND OTHERS

The petitioner sought withdrawal but offered no sufficient reason why the petition should be allowed to be withdrawn rather than dismissed; an adjournment was refused because a security for costs hearing was imminent and parties should not incur costs unnecessarily; applying the usual principles the court dismissed...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
TZU SHIN SHIH v. EXTRA EXCEL INTERNATIONAL LTD. AND OTHERS
Parties
Petitioner: TZU SHIN SHIH; 1st Respondent: EXTRA EXCEL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED; 2nd Respondent: CHEN JAU FEI; 3rd Respondent: ZHANG RUI KANG; 4th Respondent: LE HUAN HSIN BARRY; 5th Respondent: HENDRIK TJANDRA
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 April 2002
Case Number
HCCW1278/2001
Procedural Posture
Companies (winding Up) Petition (companies Ordinance Chapter 32) / Hearing on Summons to Withdraw Petition; Interlocutory Stage (security for Costs Application Pending Before Companies Master)
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Just and Equitable Winding Up, Security for Costs, Locus Standi, Withdrawal Versus Dismissal of Proceedings, Adjournment
Source Language
en
Company Law Insolvency Civil Procedure Just and Equitable Winding Up Security for Costs Locus Standi Withdrawal Versus Dismissal of Proceedings Adjournment

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TZU SHIN SHIH

Petitioner

EXTRA EXCEL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

1st Respondent

CHEN JAU FEI

2nd Respondent

ZHANG RUI KANG

3rd Respondent

LE HUAN HSIN BARRY

4th Respondent

HENDRIK TJANDRA

5th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Companies (winding Up) Petition (companies Ordinance Chapter 32) / Hearing on Summons to Withdraw Petition; Interlocutory Stage (security for Costs Application Pending Before Companies Master)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petitioner may withdraw the just and equitable winding up petition or whether the petition should be dismissed
  2. 2 Whether the petitioner has locus to present the petition given he is not a registered shareholder and claims beneficial interest held on trust
  3. 3 Whether to grant an adjournment to enable the trustee to join as co-petitioner

Ratio Decidendi

The petitioner sought withdrawal but offered no sufficient reason why the petition should be allowed to be withdrawn rather than dismissed; an adjournment was refused because a security for costs hearing was imminent and parties should not incur costs unnecessarily; applying the usual principles the court dismissed the petition.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • Application for adjournment refused
  • Petition dismissed