Hong Kong Judgment

Court of First Instance

RE PRO-OP CONTRACTING (INT\'L) LTD

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The company had ceased trading for over four years, had no audited accounts since 2002, and the directors were in irreconcilable deadlock preventing the company from functioning; substituted service had been validly effected and the respondent did not oppose — these facts satisfy the just and equitable ground under s.177(1)(f) and justify a winding-up order.

Court disposition

Winding-up order made

Orders

  • Winding-up order made against Pro-Op Contracting (Int'l) Limited
  • Petitioner's costs, including the costs reserved on 14 March 2007, to be paid out of the assets of the Company

02

Material facts

Parties

Ho Kin Yip Vincent

Petitioner Counsel: Ms Eling Lee (instructed by Messrs Knight & Ho)

Lui Tak Tim Curtas

1st Respondent

Pro-Op Contracting (Int'l) Limited

Company

Amounts and remedies

  • Petitioner Shares: 51,000
  • Respondent Shares: 49,000

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Winding Up Petition (companies (winding Up) No. 587 of 2006) / Judgment

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Petitioner submitted the company ceased trading since July 2002, no audited accounts since 30 June 2002, directors in deadlock, co-signatory (1st respondent) refused to sign cheques causing inability to pay creditors, petitioner paid some debts personally and attempted to convene EGM to place company into voluntary liquidation; sought winding-up on just and equitable ground.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Companies Ordinance (Cap. 32) s.177(1)(f) and common law

    Court may wind up a company on the just and equitable ground where company cannot function due to directors' deadlock

  2. 02

    Court practice and the order dated 24 January 2007 (substituted service by advertisement and post)

    Substituted service may be ordered where personal service cannot be effected and must be complied with before hearing

  3. 03

    Equitable court practice and order of the court

    Costs of a successful petitioner in winding-up are payable out of the assets of the company

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The company had ceased trading for over four years, had no audited accounts since 2002, and the directors were in irreconcilable deadlock preventing the company from functioning; substituted service had been validly effected and the respondent did not oppose — these facts satisfy the just and equitable ground under s.177(1)(f) and justify a winding-up order.

Obiter and limits

  • Petitioner had to settle some company debts from his own funds.
  • Substituted service by advertisement and post was ordered on 24 January 2007 and complied with.
  • The 1st respondent did not appear or file evidence in opposition.

Court disposition

Winding-up order made

  • Winding-up order made against Pro-Op Contracting (Int'l) Limited
  • Petitioner's costs, including the costs reserved on 14 March 2007, to be paid out of the assets of the Company

Source and reliance status

Court of First Instance · 19 March 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· 19 March 2007

RE PRO-OP CONTRACTING (INT\'L) LTD

bjbj HCCW 587/2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE COMPANIES (WINDING-UP) NO. 587 OF 2006 ____ IN THE MATTER of PRO-OP CONTRACTING (INT L) LIMITED and IN THE MATTER of the Companies Ordinance (Cap. 32) ____ Before: Hon Kwan J in Court Date of Hearing: 19 March 2007 Date of Judgment: 19 March 2007 ______

J U D G M E N T ______ This is a winding-up petition presented by a contributory Ho Kin Yip Vincent on the just and equitable ground under section 177(1)(f) of the Companies Ordinance, Cap.

32. The company in question is called Pro-Op Contracting (Int l) Limited ( the Company ). It was incorporated in Hong Kong on 30 December 1999. The petitioner and the 1st respondent Lui Tak Tim Curtas are the only shareholders, with the petitioner holding 51,000 of the issued shares and the 1st respondent holding the remaining 49,000 shares. They are also the only directors. The petitioner has been unable to effect personal service of the petition on the 1st respondent. He obtained an order from a Master on 24 January 2007 for substituted service of the petition by advertisement in a newspaper and by post sent to the 1st respondent s last known address. That order has been complied with. The notice of hearing of this petition was also advertised in a newspaper. The 1st respondent has not appeared or filed any evidence in opposition. On the evidence filed by the petitioner, the Company has ceased trading since July 2002. The directors have been in deadlock. No audited accounts have been prepared since the financial period ended 30 June 2002. The Company was unable to settle its tax liability and pay legitimate creditors, as the 1st respondent being a co-signatory of the bank accounts of the Company had refused to sign company cheques notwithstanding funds available in the accounts. I understand the petitioner had to settle some of the debts of the Company with his own funds. The

petitioner has attempted to convene an extraordinary general meeting to pass a resolution to put the Company into voluntary liquidation. The 1st respondent has failed to respond at all. The Company is clearly unable to function as its directors are in deadlock. It has ceased trading for over four years. It seems to me it would be just and equitable to wind up the Company. I therefore make a winding-up order. The petitioner s costs, including the costs reserved on 14 March 2007, are to be paid out of the assets of the Company. (S Kwan) Judge of the Court of First Instance High Court Ms Eling Lee, instructed by Messrs Knight & Ho, for the Petitioner The 1st Respondent, acting in person, 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

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T U V 1udk 1udk i$&` 5<>| w[{t0 w[{t 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) s.177(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.