PAUL EIDENS v. MALCOLM IAN GLASS AND OTHERTS

PAUL EIDENS v. MALCOLM IAN GLASS AND OTHERTS

The plaintiff was not a "person interested" because he had no proprietary or pecuniary interest in the dissolved company; consequently he lacked locus standi and the application under s.248(4) and s.290 was dismissed with costs to the liquidators.

Citation
PAUL EIDENS v. MALCOLM IAN GLASS AND OTHERTS
Parties
Plaintiff: Paul Eidens; 1st Defendant: Malcolm Ian Glass; 2nd Defendant: Steven Todd Krause; 3rd Defendant: Mercator Trading Company Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 May 1995
Case Number
HCMP2927/1994
Procedural Posture
Application Under Companies Ordinance (cap.32) S.248(4) and S.290 / Judgment in Chambers (hearing 8 May 1995; Judgment 8 May 1995; Written Judgment 10 May 1995)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Company Dissolution, Restoration of Dissolved Company, Locus Standi, Liquidators' Powers
Source Language
EN
Company Law Insolvency Company Dissolution Restoration of Dissolved Company Locus Standi Liquidators' Powers

Case Brief

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Eidens

Plaintiff

Malcolm Ian Glass

1st Defendant

Steven Todd Krause

2nd Defendant

Mercator Trading Company Limited

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application Under Companies Ordinance (cap.32) S.248(4) and S.290 / Judgment in Chambers (hearing 8 May 1995; Judgment 8 May 1995; Written Judgment 10 May 1995)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is a "person interested" under s.248(4) and s.290 of the Companies Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the court should defer dissolution or declare it void
  3. 3 Whether restoration is appropriate where the company has no assets or business

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was not a "person interested" because he had no proprietary or pecuniary interest in the dissolved company; consequently he lacked locus standi and the application under s.248(4) and s.290 was dismissed with costs to the liquidators.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Costs awarded to the 1st and 2nd Defendants