THE JOINT AND SEVERAL PROVISIONAL LIQUIDATORS OF PIONEER IRON AND STEEL GROUP COY LTD (IN PROVISIONAL LIQUIDATION) v. CHEN NINGNING

THE JOINT AND SEVERAL PROVISIONAL LIQUIDATORS OF PIONEER IRON AND STEEL GROUP COY LTD (IN PROVISIONAL LIQUIDATION) v. CHEN NINGNING

The renewed application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the proposed grounds did not disclose a reasonable prospect of success nor any other reason in the interests of justice: the judge acted within the scope of s.221, did not reverse the burden of proof, reached factually supportable findings after...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
THE JOINT AND SEVERAL PROVISIONAL LIQUIDATORS OF PIONEER IRON AND STEEL GROUP COY LTD (IN PROVISIONAL LIQUIDATION) v. CHEN NINGNING
Parties
Applicants: The Joint and Several Provisional Liquidators of Pioneer Iron and Steel Group Company Limited (In Provisional Liquidation); Respondent: Madam Chen Ningning
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 December 2011
Case Number
HCMP1362/2011
Procedural Posture
HCMP 1362/2011 (application Under S.221 Companies Ordinance) / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Appeal; Leave Refused/dismissed With Costs
Outcome
Renewed application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Section 221 Companies Ordinance (examination Powers), Leave to Appeal (s.14 Aa(4) High Court Ordinance), Burden of Proof, Judicial Discretion, Re Ezcom Holdings Ltd. Application
Source Language
en
Company Law Insolvency Civil Procedure Evidence Section 221 Companies Ordinance (examination Powers) Leave to Appeal (s.14 Aa(4) High Court Ordinance) Burden of Proof Judicial Discretion +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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Joint and Several Provisional Liquidators of Pioneer Iron and Steel Group Company Limited (In Provisional Liquidation)

Applicants

Madam Chen Ningning

Respondent

Procedural Posture

HCMP 1362/2011 (application Under S.221 Companies Ordinance) / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Appeal; Leave Refused/dismissed With Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the s.221 examination order was excessively wide and beyond statutory scope
  2. 2 Whether the judge reversed or misapplied the burden of proof
  3. 3 Whether the judge's factual findings lacked any basis

Ratio Decidendi

The renewed application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the proposed grounds did not disclose a reasonable prospect of success nor any other reason in the interests of justice: the judge acted within the scope of s.221, did not reverse the burden of proof, reached factually supportable findings after assessing the evidence, and properly exercised his discretion taking oppression and Re Ezcom into account.

Court Disposition

Renewed application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Renewed application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, to include costs of the application for leave to appeal below