RE THE PRECAST PILING AND ENGINEERING CO LTD (in liquidation)

Parties

Procedural Posture

Companies (winding Up) / Chambers Application for Amendment of Proof of Debt and Leave Under Section 186

Legal Issues

1. 1 Whether omission to state security in proof of debt was inadvertence such that amendment under rule 84 should be allowed
2. 2 Whether liquidators had altered their position so as to preclude amendment
3. 3 Whether leave under section 186 should be granted to continue High Court proceedings and apply for release of money paid into court

Ratio Decidendi

The omission to state the security in Mau Shing's proof of debt arose from inadvertence caused by erroneous legal advice from its former solicitors; accordingly the court allowed amendment under rule 84 on terms that Mau Shing indemnify the liquidators for costs occasioned by the omission and granted leave under section 186 to proceed in the High Court Action to apply for release of the HK$700,000 paid into court; costs of the present application were ordered to be paid by Mau Shing to the liquidators on the standard basis.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part.

Orders

• Leave granted under rule 84 to amend the proof of debt to state Mau Shing is a secured creditor to the extent of HK$700,000, on condition that Mau Shing indemnify the liquidators in respect of their costs incurred in the application for release of the amount paid into court.
• Leave granted under section 186 for Mau Shing to proceed in the High Court Action for the purpose of applying for release of the money paid into court on the basis of the adjudication.