HUSSAIN TANWEER v. FOCUS ROLLER SHUTTER LTD

HUSSAIN TANWEER v. FOCUS ROLLER SHUTTER LTD

Because the respondent company had been wound up before the 26/5/06 hearing and no leave to proceed had been granted by the Companies Court at that time, the 26/5/06 Order and steps taken pursuant to it were ineffective under section 186 Companies Ordinance; additionally, expert medical evidence could not be...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
HUSSAIN TANWEER v. FOCUS ROLLER SHUTTER LTD
Parties
Applicant: HUSSAIN TANWEER; Respondent (in Liquidation): FOCUS ROLLER SHUTTER LIMITED
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 September 2006
Case Number
DCEC1145/2005
Procedural Posture
Employees Compensation / Assessment of Compensation (hearing Adjourned for Directions)
Outcome
Assessment hearing adjourned; 26/5/06 Order declared defective for want of Companies Court leave; directions issued and assessment re-fixed.
Legal Topics
Employees Compensation, Winding Up, Leave to Proceed, Expert Evidence, Hearsay Rules, Section 18 Appeal
Source Language
en
Employment Law Companies Law Civil Procedure Employees Compensation Winding Up Leave to Proceed Expert Evidence Hearsay Rules +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HUSSAIN TANWEER

Applicant

FOCUS ROLLER SHUTTER LIMITED

Respondent (in Liquidation)

Procedural Posture

Employees Compensation / Assessment of Compensation (hearing Adjourned for Directions)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Effect of section 186 Companies Ordinance on proceedings where defendant company has been wound up
  2. 2 Validity of orders and service made after winding up without leave of Companies Court
  3. 3 Admissibility and procedure for expert medical evidence and hearsay under District Court rules

Ratio Decidendi

Because the respondent company had been wound up before the 26/5/06 hearing and no leave to proceed had been granted by the Companies Court at that time, the 26/5/06 Order and steps taken pursuant to it were ineffective under section 186 Companies Ordinance; additionally, expert medical evidence could not be admitted without prior court directions and proper service on the provisional liquidators; therefore the hearing could not proceed and the matter must be adjourned with specified directions.

Court Disposition

Assessment hearing adjourned; 26/5/06 Order declared defective for want of Companies Court leave; directions issued and assessment re-fixed.

Orders

  • In all further proceedings the Respondent shall be named as Focus Roller Shutter Limited (in liquidation).
  • Respondent to file and serve its List of Documents within 14 days from service of the order.