MARC DRANSENE CONCEPTION AND ANOTHER v. CNG LTD AND ANOTHER
- Citation
- MARC DRANSENE CONCEPTION AND ANOTHER v. CNG LTD AND ANOTHER
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 22 January 2007
- Posture
- Companies (winding Up) Petition Under Companies Ordinance S177(1)(d) / Judgment (winding Up Order Made 22 January 2007)
- Case number
- HCCW357/2006
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 22 January 2007
- Posture
- Companies (winding Up) Petition Under Companies Ordinance S177(1)(d) / Judgment (winding Up Order Made 22 January 2007)
- Case number
- HCCW357/2006
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
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 & AssociatesLim Poh Suan
2nd Respondent Counsel: Messrs Boase, Cohen & CollinsAmounts 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
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
- 01
Whether the Company was insolvent under s177(1)(d) of the Companies Ordinance
- 02
Whether unpaid sums to the 2nd petitioner and employees were established
- 03
Whether the 2nd respondent was entitled to security for costs
- 04
What costs orders should be made including payment of Official Receiver's costs
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
Legal principles
- 01
Companies Ordinance, Cap.32 s177(1)(d)
A company may be wound up if unable to pay its debts.
- 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.
- 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.
Court of First Instance
Judgment· 22 January 2007
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
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.