RE MARSEN LTD

RE MARSEN LTD

Winding up orders were made because the companies were deemed insolvent under s.178(1)(a) Cap.32 for failing to comply with statutory demands; the debt derived from an unsuspended contested judgment; the companies failed to discharge the burden of demonstrating a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds (their...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 492
Parties
Petitioner: Bank of China (Hong Kong) Limited; Company/respondent: Mau Ying Properties Company Limited (茂盈置業有限公司); Company/respondent: Marsen Limited (茂昇投資有限公司); Company/respondent: Mau Wing Industrial Limited (茂榮實業有限公司); Interested Party: Official Receiver
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 February 2024
Case Number
HCCW465/2023
Procedural Posture
Companies (winding Up) Proceedings / Decision on Petitions — Reasons for Judgment and Winding Up Orders
Outcome
Winding up orders made against the three companies
Legal Topics
Winding Up, Statutory Demand, Bona Fide Dispute, Mortgagee Sale, Judgment Debt, Adjournment, Late Evidence
Source Language
en
Company Law Insolvency Mortgage Law Civil Procedure Winding Up Statutory Demand Bona Fide Dispute Mortgagee Sale +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bank of China (Hong Kong) Limited

Petitioner

Mau Ying Properties Company Limited (茂盈置業有限公司)

Company/respondent

Marsen Limited (茂昇投資有限公司)

Company/respondent

Mau Wing Industrial Limited (茂榮實業有限公司)

Company/respondent

Official Receiver

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Companies (winding Up) Proceedings / Decision on Petitions — Reasons for Judgment and Winding Up Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the companies are insolvent under s.178(1)(a) Cap.32 by failing to comply with statutory demands
  2. 2 Whether there exists a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds as to the debt
  3. 3 Whether alleged misrepresentations/undue influence by bank staff induced withdrawal of appeal and stay

Ratio Decidendi

Winding up orders were made because the companies were deemed insolvent under s.178(1)(a) Cap.32 for failing to comply with statutory demands; the debt derived from an unsuspended contested judgment; the companies failed to discharge the burden of demonstrating a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds (their alleged representations were unsubstantiated and contradicted by contemporaneous documents and the alleged undervalue of sale did not materially affect the debt position); late evidence and applications to file further affirmations were unjustified and prejudicial, so no adjournment was warranted.

Court Disposition

Winding up orders made against the three companies

Orders

  • Usual winding up orders made against Mau Ying Properties Company Limited
  • Usual winding up orders made against Marsen Limited