RE GOLDLORY RESTAURANT LTD

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.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

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

  1. 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