HSIN KUANG RESTAURANT (INVESMENT & MANAGEMENT) LTD v. ABERDEEN HSIN KUANG RESTAURANT LTD

HSIN KUANG RESTAURANT (INVESMENT & MANAGEMENT) LTD v. ABERDEEN HSIN KUANG RESTAURANT LTD

Because the petitioner established a significant debt supporting insolvency, the opposing contributory held only a minimal interest and failed to present or identify anything likely to amount to a bona fide defence on substantial grounds, and because Rule 32 timelines had passed, the court refused the extension and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
HSIN KUANG RESTAURANT (INVESMENT & MANAGEMENT) LTD v. ABERDEEN HSIN KUANG RESTAURANT LTD
Parties
Petitioner: Petitioner; Respondent (company Subject to Petition): Aberdeen Hsin Kuang Restaurant Limited; Opposing Contributory: Yuen Wai Yee; Official Receiver: Official Receiver
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 June 2016
Case Number
HCCW94/2016
Procedural Posture
Companies (winding Up) Proceedings / Decision on Summons for Extension of Time and Application for Winding Up Order
Outcome
Winding-up order made; application for extension of time to file evidence in opposition dismissed
Legal Topics
Winding Up, Opposing Contributory, Affidavit Verification, Extension of Time, Insolvency Determination
Source Language
en
Company Law Insolvency Civil Procedure Winding Up Opposing Contributory Affidavit Verification Extension of Time Insolvency Determination

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 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Petitioner

Petitioner

Aberdeen Hsin Kuang Restaurant Limited

Respondent (company Subject to Petition)

Yuen Wai Yee

Opposing Contributory

Official Receiver

Official Receiver

Procedural Posture

Companies (winding Up) Proceedings / Decision on Summons for Extension of Time and Application for Winding Up Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant an extension of time for filing evidence in opposition to a winding-up petition
  2. 2 Whether the petitioner has established the company is insolvent by proof of debt
  3. 3 Whether the verifying affirmation was defective and compliance with Rule 32 time limits

Ratio Decidendi

Because the petitioner established a significant debt supporting insolvency, the opposing contributory held only a minimal interest and failed to present or identify anything likely to amount to a bona fide defence on substantial grounds, and because Rule 32 timelines had passed, the court refused the extension and made the winding-up order.

Court Disposition

Winding-up order made; application for extension of time to file evidence in opposition dismissed

Orders

  • Make the normal winding-up order against Aberdeen Hsin Kuang Restaurant Limited
  • Dismiss the opposing contributory’s summons for a 21 day extension of time to file evidence in opposition