PETER DE KRASSEL AND ANOTHER v. FRANCIS ROXAS MORAN AND OTHERS

PETER DE KRASSEL AND ANOTHER v. FRANCIS ROXAS MORAN AND OTHERS

The court ordered winding up under Section 177(1)(d), refused any stay of that winding up at this stage, stayed the Section 228A miscellaneous proceedings because a compulsory winding up was proceeding and two winding up processes cannot run concurrently, adjourned the appointment of joint liquidators pending formal paperwork, and directed that the costs of the winding up petition be paid by CAL while making no order as to costs in the Miscellaneous Proceedings (duplicated costs disallowed).

Citation
PETER DE KRASSEL AND ANOTHER v. FRANCIS ROXAS MORAN AND OTHERS
Parties
Petitioner and 4th Defendant: BOZELL ASIA (HOLDING) LIMITED; 1st Respondent and 2nd Plaintiff: CAL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED; 2nd Respondent and 5th Defendant: CAL/BOZELL HOLDINGS LIMITED; 1st Plaintiff: PETER DE KRASSEL; 1st Defendant: FRANCIS ROXAS MORAN; 2nd Defendant: THOMAS YEUNG SIN KIT; 3rd Defendant: MICHAEL ANDERSON
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 October 1996
Case Number
HCMP3209/1995
Procedural Posture
Winding Up Petition and Miscellaneous Proceedings Under the Companies Ordinance / Decision on Costs and Final Orders Following Hearing and Judgment (winding Up Order Made)
Outcome
Winding up order made; stay of Section 228A proceedings; appointment of joint liquidators adjourned; costs allocated as ordered.
Legal Topics
Winding Up, Stay of Proceedings, Appointment of Liquidators, Section 228 a, Costs Allocation
Source Language
EN
Companies Law Insolvency Civil Procedure Court Costs Winding Up Stay of Proceedings Appointment of Liquidators Section 228 a +1 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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BOZELL ASIA (HOLDING) LIMITED

Petitioner and 4th Defendant

CAL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

1st Respondent and 2nd Plaintiff

CAL/BOZELL HOLDINGS LIMITED

2nd Respondent and 5th Defendant

PETER DE KRASSEL

1st Plaintiff

FRANCIS ROXAS MORAN

1st Defendant

THOMAS YEUNG SIN KIT

2nd Defendant

MICHAEL ANDERSON

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Winding Up Petition and Miscellaneous Proceedings Under the Companies Ordinance / Decision on Costs and Final Orders Following Hearing and Judgment (winding Up Order Made)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to order a stay of the compulsory winding up
  2. 2 Whether to appoint joint liquidators at this stage
  3. 3 Which party should bear costs of the winding up petition

Ratio Decidendi

The court ordered winding up under Section 177(1)(d), refused any stay of that winding up at this stage, stayed the Section 228A miscellaneous proceedings because a compulsory winding up was proceeding and two winding up processes cannot run concurrently, adjourned the appointment of joint liquidators pending formal paperwork, and directed that the costs of the winding up petition be paid by CAL while making no order as to costs in the Miscellaneous Proceedings (duplicated costs disallowed).

Court Disposition

Winding up order made; stay of Section 228A proceedings; appointment of joint liquidators adjourned; costs allocated as ordered.

Orders

  • Order for winding up under Section 177(1)(d) of the Companies Ordinance.
  • Refusal of any stay of the winding up at this stage.