NG SHUI LAN v. HONG CHUNG SING

NG SHUI LAN v. HONG CHUNG SING

The court held the provisional liquidators application would not have succeeded because delay in disclosure did not demonstrate real jeopardy and the petitioner should have used s121; costs of that application (including Official Receiver costs of HKD 4,900) are payable by the petitioner to the 1st respondent. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
NG SHUI LAN v. HONG CHUNG SING
Parties
Petitioner: Ng Shui Lan; 1st Respondent: Hong Chung Sing
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 December 2006
Case Number
HCCW398/2006
Procedural Posture
Companies Winding Up Proceedings (shareholder Petition) / Interim Chamber Applications for Provisional Liquidators and Receivers; Pre Trial
Outcome
Application to withdraw provisional liquidators granted; provisional liquidators application refused on its merits; receivers and managers appointed over company properties; costs orders made against respective unsuccessful applicants as specified.
Legal Topics
Appointment of Provisional Liquidators, Appointment of Receivers and Managers, Shareholder Deadlock, Inspection of Company Records (s121), Costs Orders
Source Language
en
Company Law Insolvency Civil Procedure Property Appointment of Provisional Liquidators Appointment of Receivers and Managers Shareholder Deadlock Inspection of Company Records (s121) +1 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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ng Shui Lan

Petitioner

Hong Chung Sing

1st Respondent

Procedural Posture

Companies Winding Up Proceedings (shareholder Petition) / Interim Chamber Applications for Provisional Liquidators and Receivers; Pre Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petitioner established real jeopardy to company assets to justify provisional liquidators
  2. 2 Who should bear costs of the withdrawn provisional liquidators application
  3. 3 Whether receivers and managers should be appointed over company properties to resolve deadlock

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the provisional liquidators application would not have succeeded because delay in disclosure did not demonstrate real jeopardy and the petitioner should have used s121; costs of that application (including Official Receiver costs of HKD 4,900) are payable by the petitioner to the 1st respondent. The court appointed receivers and managers over the company's properties to resolve the shareholders' deadlock and ordered the 1st respondent to pay the costs of the receivership application to the petitioner, with liberty to apply to vary the receivers' scope.

Court Disposition

Application to withdraw provisional liquidators granted; provisional liquidators application refused on its merits; receivers and managers appointed over company properties; costs orders made against respective unsuccessful applicants as specified.

Orders

  • Leave granted to withdraw application for appointment of provisional liquidators
  • Costs of the provisional liquidators application, including Official Receiver's assessed costs of HKD 4,900, to be paid by the Petitioner to the 1st Respondent