JAMES WARDELL AND JACKSON IP, Joint and Several Liquidators of KIN MING TOY MANUFACTORY LTD (In Liquidation) v. CHENG SHING KI AND ANOTHER

JAMES WARDELL AND JACKSON IP, Joint and Several Liquidators of KIN MING TOY MANUFACTORY LTD (In Liquidation) v. CHENG SHING KI AND ANOTHER

The Court followed the binding authority of the Court of Appeal in Kam Toys that an unsuccessful application initiated by a liquidator attracts personal liability for costs, and ordered the petitioning liquidators to pay the respondents' costs personally with a certificate for counsel.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 2285
Parties
Petitioner: James Wardell and Jackson Ip; 1st Respondent: Cheng Shing Ki; 2nd Respondent: Bangkok Bank Public Company Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 October 2018
Case Number
HCCW402/2015
Procedural Posture
Companies Winding Up Proceedings / Decision on Costs (application Under S182 Heard and Dismissed)
Outcome
Application dismissed; costs awarded against the petitioning liquidators personally
Legal Topics
Liquidator Liability for Costs, Section 182 Companies (winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (cap 32), Precedent Effect of Court of Appeal Decision
Source Language
en
Company Law Insolvency Law Civil Procedure Costs Liquidator Liability for Costs Section 182 Companies (winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (cap 32) Precedent Effect of Court of Appeal Decision

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Wardell and Jackson Ip

Petitioner

Cheng Shing Ki

1st Respondent

Bangkok Bank Public Company Limited

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Companies Winding Up Proceedings / Decision on Costs (application Under S182 Heard and Dismissed)

  1. 1 Whether payments sought to be declared void under s182 should succeed
  2. 2 Whether costs of the unsuccessful application should be paid from the company assets or personally by the liquidators
  3. 3 Whether the Court should follow the Court of Appeal decision in Kam Toys

Ratio Decidendi

The Court followed the binding authority of the Court of Appeal in Kam Toys that an unsuccessful application initiated by a liquidator attracts personal liability for costs, and ordered the petitioning liquidators to pay the respondents' costs personally with a certificate for counsel.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; costs awarded against the petitioning liquidators personally

Orders

  • The respondents' costs of the summons are to be paid personally by the Petitioner with a certificate for counsel.