RE MASTER GLORY GROUP LTD

RE MASTER GLORY GROUP LTD

The court refused the adjournment because the Company’s evidence was produced too late and was manifestly inadequate to demonstrate a realistic prospect of settling debts; accordingly a winding-up order was made in HCCW 363/2019, the other two petitions were dismissed, and costs were allocated as ordered.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1141
Parties
Petitioner: Petitioners (related companies); Company / Respondent: 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
HCCW365/2019
Procedural Posture
Companies Winding Up Proceedings (cap 32) / Hearing and Decision on Petitions (1 June 2020)
Outcome
Winding-up order made in HCCW 363/2019; HCCW 364/2019 and HCCW 365/2019 dismissed.
Legal Topics
Winding Up, Statutory Demand, Adjournment Applications, Costs
Source Language
EN
Company Law Insolvency Law Civil Procedure Winding Up Statutory Demand Adjournment Applications Costs

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

Petitioners (related companies)

Petitioner

Master Glory Group Limited (凱華集團有限公司)

Company / Respondent

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 Proceedings (cap 32) / Hearing and Decision on Petitions (1 June 2020)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petitions should be adjourned to allow restructuring/realisation of assets
  2. 2 Whether the evidence supporting an adjournment was timely and sufficiently detailed
  3. 3 Whether to make a winding-up order in respect of a listed company and how to allocate costs

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused the adjournment because the Company’s evidence was produced too late and was manifestly inadequate to demonstrate a realistic prospect of settling debts; accordingly a winding-up order was made in HCCW 363/2019, the other two petitions were dismissed, and costs were allocated as ordered.

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 in respect of HCCW 363/2019.