Re Wise Fare Investments Ltd.

Re Wise Fare Investments Ltd.

The petition was granted and a winding up order made because the debt of $6,000,000 was undisputed, the company failed to provide credible evidence or a viable prospect of repayment (the alleged $5,000,000 was unproven and uncertain), there was no agreement from the bank to accept instalments, and there were no grounds to exercise discretion to allow lay representation or to adjourn.

Citation
Re Wise Fare Investments Ltd.
Parties
Petitioner: Petitioner (bank); Company (respondent): Wise Fare Investments Limited; Interested Party: Official Receiver
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 February 2001
Case Number
HCCW1122/2000
Procedural Posture
Companies Winding Up Petition Under Companies Ordinance (cap.32) / Hearing and Judgment (application for Adjournment and Representation)
Outcome
Winding up order made; petition allowed; application to adjourn and for leave to represent refused.
Legal Topics
Winding Up, Statutory Demand, Adjournment, Lay Representation of Company, Debt Enforcement
Source Language
EN
Company Law Insolvency Civil Procedure Winding Up Statutory Demand Adjournment Lay Representation of Company Debt Enforcement

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Petitioner (bank)

Petitioner

Wise Fare Investments Limited

Company (respondent)

Official Receiver

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Companies Winding Up Petition Under Companies Ordinance (cap.32) / Hearing and Judgment (application for Adjournment and Representation)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the winding up petition should be adjourned
  2. 2 Whether the company should be permitted to be represented by a non‑lawyer director
  3. 3 Whether the company has a bona fide prospect of repaying the debt to resist winding up

Ratio Decidendi

The petition was granted and a winding up order made because the debt of $6,000,000 was undisputed, the company failed to provide credible evidence or a viable prospect of repayment (the alleged $5,000,000 was unproven and uncertain), there was no agreement from the bank to accept instalments, and there were no grounds to exercise discretion to allow lay representation or to adjourn.

Court Disposition

Winding up order made; petition allowed; application to adjourn and for leave to represent refused.

Orders

  • Winding up order against Wise Fare Investments Limited
  • Application for adjournment refused