In re ICS COMPUTER DISTRIBUTION LTD. formerly known as CHEFLINK LTD.

In re ICS COMPUTER DISTRIBUTION LTD. formerly known as CHEFLINK LTD.

Because an undertaking was given to the Court and was breached, and because the undertaking as drafted was erroneous and over‑enthusiastic (with solicitors and counsel present), the Court exercised its discretion to make no order as to costs and to require the respondent's solicitors to show cause within 10 days why...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
In re ICS COMPUTER DISTRIBUTION LTD. formerly known as CHEFLINK LTD.
Parties
Petitioner: Petitioning Creditor; Respondent Company: ICS Computer Distribution Limited (formerly Cheflink Limited); Official Receiver: Official Receiver
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 March 1996
Case Number
HCCW615/1995
Procedural Posture
Winding Up Petition Under the Companies Ordinance (cap. 32) / Application to Amend Final Order/undertaking Following Hearing (post Hearing Interlocutory)
Outcome
No order as to costs; undertaking to be varied; solicitors for respondent ordered to show cause within 10 days why they should not bear the company's costs personally.
Legal Topics
Winding Up, Undertaking to the Court, Personal Guarantee, Costs, Solicitors' Personal Liability
Source Language
en
Insolvency Company Law Civil Procedure Winding Up Undertaking to the Court Personal Guarantee Costs Solicitors' Personal Liability

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Petitioning Creditor

Petitioner

ICS Computer Distribution Limited (formerly Cheflink Limited)

Respondent Company

Official Receiver

Official Receiver

Procedural Posture

Winding Up Petition Under the Companies Ordinance (cap. 32) / Application to Amend Final Order/undertaking Following Hearing (post Hearing Interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent breached an undertaking to file an affidavit/affirmation as to a personal guarantee
  2. 2 Whether the company should be awarded costs or whether costs should follow the event
  3. 3 Whether the solicitors should be ordered to show cause to be personally liable for costs

Ratio Decidendi

Because an undertaking was given to the Court and was breached, and because the undertaking as drafted was erroneous and over‑enthusiastic (with solicitors and counsel present), the Court exercised its discretion to make no order as to costs and to require the respondent's solicitors to show cause within 10 days why they should not bear the costs personally; the undertaking was to be varied rather than enforce the original overly broad wording.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs; undertaking to be varied; solicitors for respondent ordered to show cause within 10 days why they should not bear the company's costs personally.

Orders

  • There shall be no order as to costs.
  • The undertaking in the final order shall be varied (original over‑broad undertaking to be corrected).