RE JINRO (HK) INTERNATIONAL LTD

RE JINRO (HK) INTERNATIONAL LTD

Although the petitioners succeeded on locus and costs should generally follow the event, the court held that a material late amendment to the petition warranted that costs occasioned by that amendment be paid by the Company. The remainder of the contested hearing costs were awarded to the petitioners, with a certificate for two counsel, to be paid out of the Company's assets. The Company's costs after the first hearing date were not ordered and therefore do not rank as costs of the petition under rule 179.

Citation
RE JINRO (HK) INTERNATIONAL LTD
Parties
Petitioners: Petitioners; Company (respondent): Jinro (HK) International Ltd
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 November 2003
Case Number
HCCW1352/2001
Procedural Posture
Companies (winding Up) No. 1352 of 2001 (winding Up Petition) / Costs Hearing / Decision on Reserved Costs
Outcome
Petitioners awarded costs of the contested hearing (certificate for two counsel) to be paid out of the Company's assets; costs occasioned by the late amendment ordered to the Company; no order as to the Company's costs after the first hearing date so they do not rank as petition costs under rule 179.
Legal Topics
Winding Up Petitions, Amendment of Petition, Costs Orders, Priority of Costs in Liquidation, Locus to Present Petition
Source Language
EN
Company Law Civil Procedure Costs Law Winding Up Petitions Amendment of Petition Costs Orders Priority of Costs in Liquidation Locus to Present Petition

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Petitioners

Petitioners

Jinro (HK) International Ltd

Company (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Companies (winding Up) No. 1352 of 2001 (winding Up Petition) / Costs Hearing / Decision on Reserved Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petitioners had locus as creditors to present the winding-up petition
  2. 2 Whether a late amendment to the petition justified a departure from the general rule on costs
  3. 3 Whether a winding-up petition must plead sufficient particulars despite not being a formal pleading

Ratio Decidendi

Although the petitioners succeeded on locus and costs should generally follow the event, the court held that a material late amendment to the petition warranted that costs occasioned by that amendment be paid by the Company. The remainder of the contested hearing costs were awarded to the petitioners, with a certificate for two counsel, to be paid out of the Company's assets. The Company's costs after the first hearing date were not ordered and therefore do not rank as costs of the petition under rule 179.

Court Disposition

Petitioners awarded costs of the contested hearing (certificate for two counsel) to be paid out of the Company's assets; costs occasioned by the late amendment ordered to the Company; no order as to the Company's costs after the first hearing date so they do not rank as petition costs under rule 179.

Orders

  • Petitioners to have the costs of the contested hearing with a certificate for two counsel to be paid out of the assets of the Company
  • Costs in favour of the petitioners to include all costs reserved on previous occasions except for the costs of the late amendment of the petition