Re Eureca Corporation Ltd.

Re Eureca Corporation Ltd.

Because the petitioner established a statutory demand for an unpaid debt of US$4,315,843.18 and the opposing contributories, despite being permitted to file evidence, did not file any evidence nor appear at the hearing, the court was entitled to make a winding-up order against the company and award costs to the petitioner to be paid out of the company's assets.

Citation
Re Eureca Corporation Ltd.
Parties
Petitioner: Fortis Bank Asia HK; Company / Respondent: Eureca Corporation Limited; Opposing Contributories: Opposing Contributories; Official Receiver: Official Receiver
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 June 2002
Case Number
HCCW1341/2001
Procedural Posture
Companies (winding Up) Petition / Hearing and Judgment (winding Up Order Made)
Outcome
Winding-up order made against Eureca Corporation Limited.
Legal Topics
Winding Up, Statutory Demand, Costs
Source Language
EN
Insolvency Company Law Civil Procedure Winding Up Statutory Demand Costs

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

Parties

Fortis Bank Asia HK

Petitioner

Eureca Corporation Limited

Company / Respondent

Opposing Contributories

Opposing Contributories

Official Receiver

Official Receiver

Procedural Posture

Companies (winding Up) Petition / Hearing and Judgment (winding Up Order Made)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a winding-up order should be made based on a statutory demand for unpaid debt
  2. 2 Whether opposition by contributories founded on evidence was effective when directions for filing evidence were not complied with
  3. 3 Entitlement to costs and source of payment

Ratio Decidendi

Because the petitioner established a statutory demand for an unpaid debt of US$4,315,843.18 and the opposing contributories, despite being permitted to file evidence, did not file any evidence nor appear at the hearing, the court was entitled to make a winding-up order against the company and award costs to the petitioner to be paid out of the company's assets.

Court Disposition

Winding-up order made against Eureca Corporation Limited.

Orders

  • Winding-up order made against Eureca Corporation Limited dated 3 June 2002
  • Costs to the petitioner to be paid out of the assets of the Company