RE MASTER GLORY GROUP LTD

RE MASTER GLORY GROUP LTD

Because the company produced an affirmation more than six months after issue and only on the morning of the hearing, lacked up‑to‑date audited financial statements and provided vague and inadequate evidence while a petitioner owning a significant portion of the debt opposed adjournment, the court concluded there was no sensible alternative and made a winding‑up order in HCCW 363/2019 and dismissed the other two petitions with specified costs directions.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1141
Parties
Petitioner: Petitioners (related companies); Company: Master Glory Group Limited (凱華集團有限公司); Supporting Creditor: Citizens Money Lending Corporation Limited; Supporting Creditor: CW Financing Limited; Supporting Creditor: Advance Tech Limited; Official Receiver: Official Receiver
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
1 June 2020
Case Number
HCCW364/2019
Procedural Posture
Companies Winding Up Petitions Under Cap 32 / Hearing and Decision (judgment)
Outcome
Winding‑up order made in HCCW 363/2019; HCCW 364/2019 and HCCW 365/2019 dismissed.
Legal Topics
Winding Up, Statutory Demand, Adjournment, Costs, Listed Companies
Source Language
EN
Company Law Insolvency Law Civil Procedure Winding Up Statutory Demand Adjournment Costs Listed Companies

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Petitioners (related companies)

Petitioner

Master Glory Group Limited (凱華集團有限公司)

Company

Citizens Money Lending Corporation Limited

Supporting Creditor

CW Financing Limited

Supporting Creditor

Advance Tech Limited

Supporting Creditor

Official Receiver

Official Receiver

Procedural Posture

Companies Winding Up Petitions Under Cap 32 / Hearing and Decision (judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petitions to wind up should be adjourned pending asset realisation and debt restructuring
  2. 2 Whether the evidence supplied by the company was timely and sufficiently detailed for an adjournment
  3. 3 Appropriate costs orders where petitions are adjourned or dismissed

Ratio Decidendi

Because the company produced an affirmation more than six months after issue and only on the morning of the hearing, lacked up‑to‑date audited financial statements and provided vague and inadequate evidence while a petitioner owning a significant portion of the debt opposed adjournment, the court concluded there was no sensible alternative and made a winding‑up order in HCCW 363/2019 and dismissed the other two petitions with specified costs directions.

Court Disposition

Winding‑up order made in HCCW 363/2019; HCCW 364/2019 and HCCW 365/2019 dismissed.

Orders

  • Make winding‑up order in HCCW 363/2019.
  • Order one set of costs for the supporting creditors.