ZHAO YING v. KING BILLION CORPORATION LTD

ZHAO YING v. KING BILLION CORPORATION LTD

Applications dismissed because applicant failed to show the failures to comply with s122 arose from inadvertence; retaining a corporate secretary without contemporaneous documentary evidence of advice (eg instructions, written advice or fee notes) was insufficient to discharge the burden and justified inference of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
ZHAO YING v. KING BILLION CORPORATION LTD
Parties
Applicant/beneficial Owner: Ms Zhao Ying; Respondent: Respondent Company 1; Respondent: Respondent Company 2
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 August 2014
Case Number
HCMP714/2014
Procedural Posture
Section 122 Companies Ordinance Application to Extend Time to Lay Accounts and Balance Sheets / Judgment on Originating Summonses
Outcome
originating summonses dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time Under S122, Filing of Annual Accounts, Directors' Duties, Due Diligence for Listing
Source Language
en
Company Law Corporate Governance Regulatory Compliance Extension of Time Under S122 Filing of Annual Accounts Directors' Duties Due Diligence for Listing

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms Zhao Ying

Applicant/beneficial Owner

Respondent Company 1

Respondent

Respondent Company 2

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Section 122 Companies Ordinance Application to Extend Time to Lay Accounts and Balance Sheets / Judgment on Originating Summonses

  1. 1 Whether the court should exercise its discretion under s122 to extend time for laying accounts
  2. 2 Whether the failures were inadvertence or indifference by directors
  3. 3 What evidence is required to demonstrate directors obtained adequate advice (eg fee notes, written advice)

Ratio Decidendi

Applications dismissed because applicant failed to show the failures to comply with s122 arose from inadvertence; retaining a corporate secretary without contemporaneous documentary evidence of advice (eg instructions, written advice or fee notes) was insufficient to discharge the burden and justified inference of indifference, so the court declined to exercise its discretion to extend time (with no basis to extend for years with no prosecution risk).

Court Disposition

originating summonses dismissed

Orders

  • The originating summonses seeking extensions of time under s122 were dismissed