RE MILLION UP LTD

RE MILLION UP LTD

The company failed to discharge the burden of proof to justify an adjournment because it produced no credible, precise or contemporaneous evidence that the proposed investor funding would be provided or that such funding would enable payment of the petitioning debt; therefore the petitioner was entitled to a winding up order and the adjournment was refused.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 1925
Parties
Petitioner: Vestpro International Limited; Company: Million Up Limited (百陞有限公司); Official Receiver: Official Receiver's Office
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
31 March 2026
Case Number
HCCW5/2026
Procedural Posture
Winding Up Petition Under S.178(1)(a) Companies (winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance Cap.32 / Hearing and Disposal; Winding Up Order Made
Outcome
Winding up order made against Million Up Limited; petition not adjourned
Legal Topics
Winding Up, Statutory Demand, Adjournment Application, Enforcement of Arbitral Award
Source Language
EN
Company Law Insolvency Arbitration Enforcement Civil Procedure Winding Up Statutory Demand Adjournment Application Enforcement of Arbitral Award

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vestpro International Limited

Petitioner

Million Up Limited (百陞有限公司)

Company

Official Receiver's Office

Official Receiver

Procedural Posture

Winding Up Petition Under S.178(1)(a) Companies (winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance Cap.32 / Hearing and Disposal; Winding Up Order Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether petitioner entitled ex debito justitiae to winding up order where debt undisputed
  2. 2 Whether company established credible repayment proposal to justify adjournment
  3. 3 Whether evidence of proposed investor funding was sufficiently precise and reliable

Ratio Decidendi

The company failed to discharge the burden of proof to justify an adjournment because it produced no credible, precise or contemporaneous evidence that the proposed investor funding would be provided or that such funding would enable payment of the petitioning debt; therefore the petitioner was entitled to a winding up order and the adjournment was refused.

Court Disposition

Winding up order made against Million Up Limited; petition not adjourned

Orders

  • Winding up order made against Million Up Limited under s.178(1)(a) Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance Cap.32
  • Application for adjournment refused