RE GOLDLORY RESTAURANT LTD

RE GOLDLORY RESTAURANT LTD

Sections 196(2) and rule 146(2) confer on the court an unfettered discretion and do not require the percentage basis applicable to the Official Receiver to be the default; as a matter of established and appropriate practice the court will adopt the time cost basis for remuneration of liquidators in summary cases...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
RE GOLDLORY RESTAURANT LTD
Parties
Official Receiver (statutory Liquidator): Official Receiver; Panel T Practitioner / Liquidator: Alvarez & Marsal Asia Limited; Panel T Practitioner / Liquidator: Baker Tilly Hong Kong Business Recovery Limited; Panel T Practitioner / Liquidator: Kenny Tam & Co.; Panel T Practitioner / Liquidator: Gallant Y.T. Ho & Co.; Company: GOLDLORY RESTAURANT LIMITED; Company: DOUBLE MIND COMPANY LIMITED; Company: SOBUN SERVICES LIMITED; Company: REGENT DELTA LIMITED; Company: SUN DENKI (H.K.) COMPANY LIMITED; Company: FU KONG (HOLDINGS) COMPANY LIMITED; Company: APEX COMPUTRONICS COMPANY LIMITED; Company: CHINA GUANGDONG REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT LIMITED; Company: CHAMPION PEAK (GROUP) LIMITED; Company: HARVEST SUMMIT LIMITED; Company: PROFIT FORWARD DEVELOPMENT LIMITED; Company: CORNFIELD INVESTMENT LIMITED; Company: HING WONG ENTERPRISES COMPANY LIMITED; Company: CENTRE OCEAN INVESTMENT LIMITED; Company: MANSION SURVEYORS LIMITED; Company: LUCKY FORTUNE RESTAURANT COMPANY LIMITED; Company: HEADWELL LIMITED; Company: KEENWAY RESOURCES LIMITED; Company: MAJORWORLD LIMITED; Company: ELEGANT GARMENTS & TEXTILES LIMITED; Company: CROWN LUXE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 July 2006
Case Number
HCCW557/2003
Procedural Posture
Company Winding Up (summary Procedure) / Hearing for Determination of Basis of Liquidators' Remuneration (interlocutory Determination)
Outcome
Issue determined in favour of adopting time cost basis for remuneration of liquidators in summary cases; court confirms discretion under s196(2) and rejects percentage basis as default
Legal Topics
Liquidator Remuneration, Summary Winding Up, Companies Ordinance S227 F, Companies Ordinance S196(2), Companies (winding Up) Rules R146(2), Panel T Scheme
Source Language
en
Company Law Insolvency Law Statutory Interpretation Civil Procedure Liquidator Remuneration Summary Winding Up Companies Ordinance S227 F Companies Ordinance S196(2) +2 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Official Receiver

Official Receiver (statutory Liquidator)

Alvarez & Marsal Asia Limited

Panel T Practitioner / Liquidator

Baker Tilly Hong Kong Business Recovery Limited

Panel T Practitioner / Liquidator

Kenny Tam & Co.

Panel T Practitioner / Liquidator

Gallant Y.T. Ho & Co.

Panel T Practitioner / Liquidator

GOLDLORY RESTAURANT LIMITED

Company

DOUBLE MIND COMPANY LIMITED

Company

SOBUN SERVICES LIMITED

Company

REGENT DELTA LIMITED

Company

SUN DENKI (H.K.) COMPANY LIMITED

Company

FU KONG (HOLDINGS) COMPANY LIMITED

Company

APEX COMPUTRONICS COMPANY LIMITED

Company

CHINA GUANGDONG REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT LIMITED

Company

CHAMPION PEAK (GROUP) LIMITED

Company

HARVEST SUMMIT LIMITED

Company

PROFIT FORWARD DEVELOPMENT LIMITED

Company

CORNFIELD INVESTMENT LIMITED

Company

HING WONG ENTERPRISES COMPANY LIMITED

Company

CENTRE OCEAN INVESTMENT LIMITED

Company

MANSION SURVEYORS LIMITED

Company

LUCKY FORTUNE RESTAURANT COMPANY LIMITED

Company

HEADWELL LIMITED

Company

KEENWAY RESOURCES LIMITED

Company

MAJORWORLD LIMITED

Company

ELEGANT GARMENTS & TEXTILES LIMITED

Company

CROWN LUXE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED

Company

Procedural Posture

Company Winding Up (summary Procedure) / Hearing for Determination of Basis of Liquidators' Remuneration (interlocutory Determination)

  1. 1 Whether remuneration of liquidators appointed under s227F should be assessed on percentage basis or time cost basis
  2. 2 Whether rule 146(2) imposes percentage basis as default absent court order
  3. 3 Whether special circumstances must be shown to depart from percentage basis

Ratio Decidendi

Sections 196(2) and rule 146(2) confer on the court an unfettered discretion and do not require the percentage basis applicable to the Official Receiver to be the default; as a matter of established and appropriate practice the court will adopt the time cost basis for remuneration of liquidators in summary cases under s227F and such basis should be provided for when the summary procedure order is made.

Court Disposition

Issue determined in favour of adopting time cost basis for remuneration of liquidators in summary cases; court confirms discretion under s196(2) and rejects percentage basis as default

Orders

  • Time cost basis to be adopted as the basis of remuneration for liquidators in summary cases under s227F and to be provided for upon the making of the summary procedure order
  • The percentage basis pursuant to the Companies (Fees and Percentages) Order is not the default basis where the court exercises its discretion under s196(2)