RE GOLDLORY RESTAURANT LTD
The court holds that s196(2) and r146(2) confer an unfettered discretion on the court to fix liquidator remuneration in summary cases; the percentage basis applicable to the Official Receiver is not the default and, as a matter of practice, the time cost basis should be adopted in summary winding-up cases and provided for when the summary procedure order is made.
- Citation
- RE GOLDLORY RESTAURANT LTD
- Parties
- Interested Party: Official Receiver; Liquidators / Panel T Practitioner: Alvarez & Marsal Asia Limited; Liquidators / Panel T Practitioner: Baker Tilly Hong Kong Business Recovery Limited; Liquidators / Panel T Practitioner: Kenny Tam & Co.; Liquidators / Panel T Practitioner: Gallant Y.T. Ho & Co.; Subject Company: Double Mind Company Limited; Subject Company: Sobun Services Limited; Subject Company: Regent Delta Limited; Subject Company: Sun Denki (H.K.) Company Limited; Subject Company: Fu Kong (Holdings) Company Limited; Subject Company: Apex Computronics Company Limited; Subject Company: China Guangdong Real Estate Investment Limited; Subject Company: Champion Peak (Group) Limited; Subject Company: Harvest Summit Limited; Subject Company: Profit Forward Development Limited; Subject Company: Cornfield Investment Limited; Subject Company: Hing Wong Enterprises Company Limited; Subject Company: Centre Ocean Investment Limited; Subject Company: Mansion Surveyors Limited; Subject Company: Lucky Fortune Restaurant Company Limited; Subject Company: Headwell Limited; Subject Company: Keenway Resources Limited; Subject Company: Majorworld Limited; Subject Company: Elegant Garments & Textiles Limited; Subject Company: Crown Luxe Development Limited
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 7 July 2006
- Case Number
- HCCW1184/2002
- Procedural Posture
- Companies Winding Up (summary Procedure) Reference on Statutory Construction / Hearing for Determination of Legal Issue; Judgment on Practice and Construction Delivered
- Outcome
- Issue determined: court affirms its discretion under s196(2) and rules r146(2) and adopts time cost basis as the practice for remunerating liquidators in summary winding-up cases under s227F; percentage under Fees and Percentages Order is not the default.
- Legal Topics
- Liquidator Remuneration, Summary Winding Up (s227 F), Statutory Interpretation, Court Practice and Delegation (panel T Scheme)
- Source Language
- EN
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Official Receiver
Interested Party
Alvarez & Marsal Asia Limited
Liquidators / Panel T Practitioner
Baker Tilly Hong Kong Business Recovery Limited
Liquidators / Panel T Practitioner
Kenny Tam & Co.
Liquidators / Panel T Practitioner
Gallant Y.T. Ho & Co.
Liquidators / Panel T Practitioner
Double Mind Company Limited
Subject Company
Sobun Services Limited
Subject Company
Regent Delta Limited
Subject Company
Sun Denki (H.K.) Company Limited
Subject Company
Fu Kong (Holdings) Company Limited
Subject Company
Apex Computronics Company Limited
Subject Company
China Guangdong Real Estate Investment Limited
Subject Company
Champion Peak (Group) Limited
Subject Company
Harvest Summit Limited
Subject Company
Profit Forward Development Limited
Subject Company
Cornfield Investment Limited
Subject Company
Hing Wong Enterprises Company Limited
Subject Company
Centre Ocean Investment Limited
Subject Company
Mansion Surveyors Limited
Subject Company
Lucky Fortune Restaurant Company Limited
Subject Company
Headwell Limited
Subject Company
Keenway Resources Limited
Subject Company
Majorworld Limited
Subject Company
Elegant Garments & Textiles Limited
Subject Company
Crown Luxe Development Limited
Subject Company
Procedural Posture
Companies Winding Up (summary Procedure) Reference on Statutory Construction / Hearing for Determination of Legal Issue; Judgment on Practice and Construction Delivered
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether remuneration of liquidators appointed under s227F of the Companies Ordinance should be assessed on a percentage basis or a time cost basis pursuant to s196(2) and Companies (Winding-up) Rules r146(2) and whether a default percentage applies
Ratio Decidendi
The court holds that s196(2) and r146(2) confer an unfettered discretion on the court to fix liquidator remuneration in summary cases; the percentage basis applicable to the Official Receiver is not the default and, as a matter of practice, the time cost basis should be adopted in summary winding-up cases and provided for when the summary procedure order is made.
Court Disposition
Issue determined: court affirms its discretion under s196(2) and rules r146(2) and adopts time cost basis as the practice for remunerating liquidators in summary winding-up cases under s227F; percentage under Fees and Percentages Order is not the default.
Orders
- Time cost basis to be adopted as the basis of remuneration in summary procedure winding-up orders and provided for when such orders are made
- Parties who took part to inform the court by letter within 7 days what order as to costs they would seek; costs of earlier hearing reserved
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment