ACROPOLIS LTD v. W&Q INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS

ACROPOLIS LTD v. W&Q INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS

On the balance of probabilities there was an understanding reached on or about 25 April 2018 between the company (Acropolis/Aeso) and the former provisional liquidators that fees would be kept to an upper range of HK$800,000 where possible; that understanding is not a fetter on the court but is a weighty factor which the court (or Taxing Master) must take into account when assessing whether fees claimed were 'properly incurred' and whether specific activities justifying fees above the HK$800,000 limit were necessary and unavoidable.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 1065
Parties
Petitioner: Acropolis Limited; 1st Respondent: W&Q Investment Limited; 2nd Respondent: Liu Chang Kien Wilson; 3rd Respondent: Zhang Qi Angel; 4th Respondent: Law Wing Kit Gary; 5th Respondent: To Lung Sang; 6th Respondent: Chan Kooi Por Benjamin; 7th Respondent: Cheung Denise; 8th Respondent: Chan Hin Hai Henry; 9th Respondent: Kort Wing Ho Joseph; 10th Respondent: Ko Kwok Fai Dennis; 11th Respondent: To Man Choy Jacky; 12th Respondent: Tsang Kwok Shan Sandy; 13th Respondent: Zhang Chenwei; 14th Respondent: Aeso Holding Limited; 15th Respondent: Wang Kie; 16th Respondent: Lam Cheuk Yu
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 April 2024
Case Number
HCCW218/2017
Procedural Posture
Companies (winding Up) No 218 of 2017 / Preliminary Issues Trial / Judgment on Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Preliminary Issue (1): Found there was an understanding that remuneration should be kept at or near HK$800,000; Preliminary Issue (2): The understanding must be taken into account in taxation though it does not bind the court; order nisi for costs made in favour of Applicants.
Legal Topics
Provisional Liquidation, Taxation of Costs, Remuneration of Officers of the Court, Misleading the Court
Source Language
EN
Company Law Insolvency Civil Procedure Professional Conduct Provisional Liquidation Taxation of Costs Remuneration of Officers of the Court Misleading the Court

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

Parties

Acropolis Limited

Petitioner

W&Q Investment Limited

1st Respondent

Liu Chang Kien Wilson

2nd Respondent

Zhang Qi Angel

3rd Respondent

Law Wing Kit Gary

4th Respondent

To Lung Sang

5th Respondent

Chan Kooi Por Benjamin

6th Respondent

Cheung Denise

7th Respondent

Chan Hin Hai Henry

8th Respondent

Kort Wing Ho Joseph

9th Respondent

Ko Kwok Fai Dennis

10th Respondent

To Man Choy Jacky

11th Respondent

Tsang Kwok Shan Sandy

12th Respondent

Zhang Chenwei

13th Respondent

Aeso Holding Limited

14th Respondent

Wang Kie

15th Respondent

Lam Cheuk Yu

16th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Companies (winding Up) No 218 of 2017 / Preliminary Issues Trial / Judgment on Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the former provisional liquidators reached an agreement or mutual understanding to cap remuneration at HK$800,000
  2. 2 Whether that agreement or understanding should be taken into account in the court's taxation of the provisional liquidators' charges

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities there was an understanding reached on or about 25 April 2018 between the company (Acropolis/Aeso) and the former provisional liquidators that fees would be kept to an upper range of HK$800,000 where possible; that understanding is not a fetter on the court but is a weighty factor which the court (or Taxing Master) must take into account when assessing whether fees claimed were 'properly incurred' and whether specific activities justifying fees above the HK$800,000 limit were necessary and unavoidable.

Court Disposition

Preliminary Issue (1): Found there was an understanding that remuneration should be kept at or near HK$800,000; Preliminary Issue (2): The understanding must be taken into account in taxation though it does not bind the court; order nisi for costs made in favour of Applicants.

Orders

  • Preliminary Issue (1) answered: there was an understanding on or about 25 April 2018 that the provisional liquidators would cap remuneration at HK$800,000 as far as possible
  • Preliminary Issue (2) answered: the mutual understanding shall be taken into account by the Court (Taxing Master) in determining Aeso Holding's Application for Review of Taxation dated 17 February 2020