CHEUNG SAI LUN v. LAU TAI CHIN FRANCIS AND ANOTHER

CHEUNG SAI LUN v. LAU TAI CHIN FRANCIS AND ANOTHER

Winding up order granted because the Company had ceased operations and lost its substratum and there was a breakdown of mutual trust and confidence; there was no binding unconditional agreement to sell the petitioner’s shares for a nominal consideration (the annexure was unsigned); petitioner’s misconduct did not bar winding up on the substratum ground; petition was not a collateral abuse.

Citation
CHEUNG SAI LUN v. LAU TAI CHIN FRANCIS AND ANOTHER
Parties
Petitioner: Cheung Sai Lun; 1st Respondent: Lau Tai Chin Francis; 2nd Respondent: UPI Technology Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 May 2007
Case Number
HCCW677/2004
Procedural Posture
Companies Winding Up Petition (s177(1)(f) Companies Ordinance Cap.32) / Trial Judgment (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Order made for winding up of UPI Technology Limited
Legal Topics
Winding Up, Just and Equitable Ground, Buy Out Order S168 a, Loss of Substratum, Breakdown of Mutual Trust and Confidence, Unfairly Prejudicial Conduct, Share Transfer Agreement, Evidence and Witness Credibility, Costs
Source Language
EN
Company Law Insolvency Equity Winding Up Just and Equitable Ground Buy Out Order S168 a Loss of Substratum Breakdown of Mutual Trust and Confidence +4 more

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cheung Sai Lun

Petitioner

Lau Tai Chin Francis

1st Respondent

UPI Technology Limited

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Companies Winding Up Petition (s177(1)(f) Companies Ordinance Cap.32) / Trial Judgment (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a binding agreement for sale of the petitioner’s shares for a nominal consideration on/around 17–19 January 2004
  2. 2 Whether the petition was brought for a collateral or improper purpose
  3. 3 Whether alleged misconduct by the petitioner disentitles him from winding up relief

Ratio Decidendi

Winding up order granted because the Company had ceased operations and lost its substratum and there was a breakdown of mutual trust and confidence; there was no binding unconditional agreement to sell the petitioner’s shares for a nominal consideration (the annexure was unsigned); petitioner’s misconduct did not bar winding up on the substratum ground; petition was not a collateral abuse.

Court Disposition

Order made for winding up of UPI Technology Limited

Orders

  • Company to be wound up (winding up order)
  • Order nisi that Mr Lau Tai Chin Francis pay Mr Cheung Sai Lun his costs of these proceedings, to be taxed on the party and party basis if not agreed