HISHA (HK) CO LTR v. UNITED COACH SERVICES CO LTD

HISHA (HK) CO LTR v. UNITED COACH SERVICES CO LTD

The Master would likely have exercised his discretion differently if he had been informed that a winding-up petition had been presented and served; it is inappropriate, and rare, to apply O.47 r.1 to a limited company apparently trading at a loss pending possible winding-up. Consequently the appeal is allowed and the stay/instalment order set aside so the plaintiff may pursue execution of its judgment.

Citation
HISHA (HK) CO LTR v. UNITED COACH SERVICES CO LTD
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: HISHA (H.K.) COMPANY LIMITED; Defendant/respondent: UNITED COACH SERVICES CO. LTD.
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 January 1984
Case Number
HCA11664/1983
Procedural Posture
Civil Debt Enforcement (summary Judgment) / Appeal From Master’s Stay and Instalment Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Master's stay and instalment order set aside; plaintiff permitted to pursue execution; costs awarded to appellant.
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution Under Order 47 R.1, Instalment Payments, Winding Up Petition and S.181 Companies Ordinance, Summary Judgment
Source Language
EN
Company Law Civil Procedure Debt Recovery Enforcement of Judgments Stay of Execution Under Order 47 R.1 Instalment Payments Winding Up Petition and S.181 Companies Ordinance Summary Judgment

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HISHA (H.K.) COMPANY LIMITED

Plaintiff/appellant

UNITED COACH SERVICES CO. LTD.

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Debt Enforcement (summary Judgment) / Appeal From Master’s Stay and Instalment Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a stay of execution under O.47 r.1 should be granted to a limited company trading at a loss
  2. 2 Whether the Master's discretion was tainted or would have been exercised differently if informed of a served winding-up petition
  3. 3 Whether an instalment order should be made pending a possible winding-up proceeding

Ratio Decidendi

The Master would likely have exercised his discretion differently if he had been informed that a winding-up petition had been presented and served; it is inappropriate, and rare, to apply O.47 r.1 to a limited company apparently trading at a loss pending possible winding-up. Consequently the appeal is allowed and the stay/instalment order set aside so the plaintiff may pursue execution of its judgment.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Master's stay and instalment order set aside; plaintiff permitted to pursue execution; costs awarded to appellant.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Master’s order granting stay and instalment payments set aside