Re Lap Ming Enterprises Ltd.

The court accepted the petitioner’s judgment debt and evidence of service of demand, found the company unable to pay its debts and, given the company's non-appearance, made a winding-up order and awarded costs payable out of the company's assets.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: Re Lap Ming Enterprises Ltd.
Parties: Petitioner: Sinochem International Chemicals (Hong Kong) Ltd; Company: Lap Ming Enterprises Limited; Official Receiver: Official Receiver
Court: Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction: Hong Kong
Judgment Date: 17 June 2002
Case Number: HCCW1197/2001
Procedural Posture: Companies (winding Up) Petition / Hearing Leading to Winding Up Order Made
Outcome: Winding-up order made against Lap Ming Enterprises Limited
Legal Topics: Winding Up, Judgment Debt, Service of Demand, Inability to Pay
Source Language: en

Company Law Insolvency Law Civil Procedure Winding Up Judgment Debt Service of Demand Inability to Pay

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Sinochem International Chemicals (Hong Kong) Ltd

Petitioner

Lap Ming Enterprises Limited

Company

Official Receiver

Procedural Posture

Companies (winding Up) Petition / Hearing Leading to Winding Up Order Made

Legal Issues

1 Whether the company is unable to pay its debts
2 Whether a winding-up petition may be founded on a judgment debt where demand has been made and not complied with
3 Effect of the company's non-appearance at the hearing

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Winding-up order made against Lap Ming Enterprises Limited

Orders

Winding-up order made against Lap Ming Enterprises Limited
Petitioner to have the costs of the petition to be paid out of the assets of the company

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.