RE RAD SOURCE TECHNOLOGIES ASIA LTD

RE RAD SOURCE TECHNOLOGIES ASIA LTD

Because the petition had been amended and a fresh verifying affidavit was filed on 30 October 2017, the Company's affirmation filed on 3 November 2017 fell within the time specified by Rule 32(1); accordingly the Company did not require leave to rely on that affirmation and the court would not impose a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
RE RAD SOURCE TECHNOLOGIES ASIA LTD
Parties
Petitioner: Petitioner (unnamed in text); Respondent: Rad Source Technologies Asia Limited; Official Receiver: Official Receiver
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 November 2017
Case Number
HCCW253/2017
Procedural Posture
Companies Winding Up (insolvency Petition) / First Hearing
Outcome
Company permitted to rely on the affirmation filed; no payment-into-court condition imposed; directions given for further conduct of the petition.
Legal Topics
Winding Up, Affidavit Deadlines, Leave to File Evidence in Opposition, Payment Into Court
Source Language
en
Company Law Insolvency Civil Procedure Winding Up Affidavit Deadlines Leave to File Evidence in Opposition Payment Into Court

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Petitioner (unnamed in text)

Petitioner

Rad Source Technologies Asia Limited

Respondent

Official Receiver

Official Receiver

Procedural Posture

Companies Winding Up (insolvency Petition) / First Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Company may rely on an affirmation filed shortly before the hearing without leave
  2. 2 Whether the court should impose payment into court as a condition for allowing late evidence in opposition
  3. 3 How Rule 32(1) of the Companies (Winding Up) Rules applies where the petition has been amended and a further verifying affidavit filed

Ratio Decidendi

Because the petition had been amended and a fresh verifying affidavit was filed on 30 October 2017, the Company's affirmation filed on 3 November 2017 fell within the time specified by Rule 32(1); accordingly the Company did not require leave to rely on that affirmation and the court would not impose a payment-into-court condition in the circumstances of this case despite recognising the general appropriateness of such conditions where evidence is filed only shortly before the hearing.

Court Disposition

Company permitted to rely on the affirmation filed; no payment-into-court condition imposed; directions given for further conduct of the petition.

Orders

  • No condition requiring payment into court imposed.
  • Directions for the further conduct of the petition as indicated to the parties.