RE GOLDLORY RESTAURANT LTD
The court holds that s196(2) and r146(2) confer an unfettered discretion on the court to determine the basis of remuneration for liquidators in summary cases and that the Official Receiver's percentage scale is not the default; as a matter of practice the time cost basis should be adopted for remuneration in summary...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- RE GOLDLORY RESTAURANT LTD
- Parties
- Official Receiver: Official Receiver; Liquidator Firm: Alvarez & Marsal Asia Limited; Liquidator Firm: Baker Tilly Hong Kong Business Recovery Limited; Liquidator Firm: Kenny Tam & Co.; Liquidator Firm: 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
- HCCW572/2001
- Procedural Posture
- Company Winding Up (summary Procedure) / Determination of Legal Basis for Liquidator Remuneration and Practice Guidance
- Outcome
- Court determines that the remuneration of liquidators appointed under s227F should not be taken by default to be the Official Receiver's percentage scale; the court's discretion under s196(2) permits fixation on a time cost basis and, as a matter of practice, time cost basis should be adopted for summary cases and...
- Legal Topics
- Liquidator Remuneration, Companies Ordinance S227 F, Companies Ordinance S196(2), Companies (winding Up) Rules R146(2), Panel T Scheme, Summary Winding Up Procedure
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Official Receiver
Official Receiver
Alvarez & Marsal Asia Limited
Liquidator Firm
Baker Tilly Hong Kong Business Recovery Limited
Liquidator Firm
Kenny Tam & Co.
Liquidator Firm
Gallant Y.T. Ho & Co.
Liquidator Firm
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) / Determination of Legal Basis for Liquidator Remuneration and Practice Guidance
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether remuneration of liquidators appointed under s227F should be assessed on a percentage basis or a time cost basis
- 2 Whether rule 146(2) mandates the percentage basis as the default where there is no committee of inspection
- 3 Whether a liquidator must show special circumstances before remuneration can be fixed on a time cost basis
Ratio Decidendi
The court holds that s196(2) and r146(2) confer an unfettered discretion on the court to determine the basis of remuneration for liquidators in summary cases and that the Official Receiver's percentage scale is not the default; as a matter of practice the time cost basis should be adopted for remuneration in summary cases and should be provided for when a summary procedure order under s227F is made.
Court Disposition
Court determines that the remuneration of liquidators appointed under s227F should not be taken by default to be the Official Receiver's percentage scale; the court's discretion under s196(2) permits fixation on a time cost basis and, as a matter of practice, time cost basis should be adopted for summary cases and...
Orders
- As a matter of construction of s196(2) and r146(2) the court has an unfettered discretion and the percentage basis is not the default
- As a matter of practice the time cost basis shall be adopted for the remuneration of liquidators in summary cases and it is appropriate to provide for that basis when a summary procedure order under s227F is made
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment