Hong Kong Judgment

Court of First Instance

MARC DRANSENE CONCEPTION AND ANOTHER v. CNG LTD AND ANOTHER

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The petitioners established that the Company was unable to pay its debts (unpaid director salary of $53,000, accumulated losses of about $3,000,000, frozen bank account, employee arrears of at least $170,000) and the respondents filed no evidence to dispute these facts; accordingly the court ordered the winding up under s177(1)(d).

Court disposition

Winding-up order made against CNG Limited

Orders

  • Winding-up order made against CNG Limited
  • Summons of the 2nd respondent for security for costs dismissed
  • Hearing date vacated
  • No order as to costs of the petition between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent
  • Official Receiver's costs to be paid by the petitioners and deducted from the petitioners' deposit of $7,700

02

Material facts

Parties

Marc Dransene Conception

1st Petitioner Counsel: Ms Rachel Lam (Sit, Fung, Kwong & Shum)

Fan Chung Pui

2nd Petitioner Counsel: Ms Rachel Lam (Sit, Fung, Kwong & Shum)

CNG Limited

1st Respondent Counsel: Messrs Yu & Associates

Lim Poh Suan

2nd Respondent Counsel: Messrs Boase, Cohen & Collins

Amounts and remedies

  • Debt to Second Petitioner: HKD 53,000
  • Accumulated Losses as At30 June2005: HKD 3,000,000
  • Total Employee Arrears at Least: HKD 170,000
  • Petitioners Deposit Deduction for Official Receiver Costs: HKD 7,700

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Companies (winding Up) Petition Under Companies Ordinance S177(1)(d) / Judgment (winding Up Order Made 22 January 2007)

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Petitioners relied on insolvency: unpaid salary to 2nd petitioner of $53,000, accumulated losses of approximately $3,000,000 as at 30 June 2005, bank account frozen from 8 July 2006, staff terminated, employee arrears at least $170,000; petitioners content to proceed on insolvency ground alone.
Respondent
No evidence filed on behalf of the Company or the 2nd respondent to dispute the debt or inability to pay; 2nd respondent applied for security for costs but was absent at hearing.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Companies Ordinance, Cap.32 s177(1)(d)

    A company may be wound up if unable to pay its debts.

  2. 02

    Court's discretionary power (procedure)

    The court has a discretion to grant or dismiss applications for security for costs based on appropriateness and evidence.

  3. 03

    Order of the Court

    Official Receiver's costs may be ordered to be paid and deducted from petitioners' deposit.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The petitioners established that the Company was unable to pay its debts (unpaid director salary of $53,000, accumulated losses of about $3,000,000, frozen bank account, employee arrears of at least $170,000) and the respondents filed no evidence to dispute these facts; accordingly the court ordered the winding up under s177(1)(d).

Obiter and limits

  • Petitioners indicated they would proceed on the insolvency ground alone rather than just and equitable ground.
  • There being no contesting evidence from respondents, the court noted the practical effect that the insolvency case stood uncontested.

Court disposition

Winding-up order made against CNG Limited

  • Winding-up order made against CNG Limited
  • Summons of the 2nd respondent for security for costs dismissed
  • Hearing date vacated
  • No order as to costs of the petition between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent
  • Official Receiver's costs to be paid by the petitioners and deducted from the petitioners' deposit of $7,700

Source and reliance status

Court of First Instance · 22 January 2007

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Court of First Instance

Judgment· 22 January 2007

MARC DRANSENE CONCEPTION AND ANOTHER v. CNG LTD AND ANOTHER

bjbj HCCW 357/2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE COMPANIES (WINDING-UP) NO. 357 OF 2006 ____ IN THE MATTER of CNG LIMITED and IN THE MATTER of Sections 177(1)(d) and 177(1)(f) of the Companies Ordinance, Chapter 32 of the Laws of Hong Kong ____

BETWEEN MARC DRANSENE CONCEPTION 1st Petitioner FAN CHUNG PUI 2nd Petitioner and CNG LIMITED 1st Respondent LIM POH SUAN 2nd Respondent ____ Before: Hon Kwan J in Court Date of Hearing: 22 January 2007 Date of Judgment: 22 January 2007 ___

J U D G M E N T ___ I have before me a petition presented by Marc Dransene Conception, a company incorporated in France, and Fan Chung Pui, seeking a winding up of CNG Limited ( the Company ). When the petition was first presented on 10 July 2006, it was only on the basis that the Company should be wound up on the just and equitable ground. The petition was amended on 11 December 2006, to add another ground for winding up, that is, the ground of insolvency under section 177(1)(d) of the Companies Ordinance, Cap.

32. It is alleged that the Company is indebted to the 2nd petitioner, Fan Chung Pui, in the sum of $53,000, being his unpaid salary. Evidence has been filed by the 2nd petitioner, who is also a director of the Company. According to his affirmation, the financial position of the Company has been unhealthy in the past few years. Accumulated losses of $3 million were recorded as at 30 June 2005, as appeared from the balance sheet as at that date. Payment of the salary of the 2nd petitioner has been often delayed. The salary for June 2006 was paid, but the salary for July 2006 was outstanding. No further payment was made by the Company as from 8 July 2006, as its bank account was frozen. The employment of all staff of the Company was terminated by the Company s letter dated 25 July 2006. The 2nd petitioner and the other staff reported to the Labour Department the arrears of wages in early August 2006. The Company has issued a statement of its inability to pay the employees as listed. The total amount owed to employees was at least $170,000. The petitioners have confirmed that they are content with seeking a winding up on the ground of insolvency alone. No evidence has been filed on behalf of the Company or by the 2nd respondent to dispute the debt of the 2nd petitioner or the inability of the Company to pay. As the ground for winding up under section 177(1)(d) is made out, I will

make an order to wind up the Company. The summons of the 2nd respondent for security for costs is dismissed, and the hearing date is vacated. I am informed by counsel for the petitioners there is agreement between all parties that on the making of a winding-up order, there should be no order as to costs of the petition as between the petitioners and 2nd respondent. I therefore make an order accordingly. The Official Receiver s costs are to be paid by the petitioners and are to be deducted out of the petitioners deposit in the sum of $7,700. (S Kwan) Judge of the Court of First Instance High Court Ms Rachel Lam, instructed by Messrs Sit, Fung, Kwong & Shum, for the 1st and 2nd Petitioners Messrs Yu & Associates, for the 1st Respondent, absent Messrs Boase, Cohen & Collins, for the 2nd Respondent, absent Mr Harry Lo for the Official Receiver

PAGE -

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J K L 1udk 1udk

T U V i$&` 5<>| HCCW.dot setup Microsoft Word 9.0 Judiciary Hong Kong Title Microsoft Word Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Companies Ordinance, Cap.32 s177(1)(d)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Companies Ordinance, Cap.32 s177(1)(f)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.