RE GALAXY ELECTRO-PLATING FACTORY LTD.

RE GALAXY ELECTRO-PLATING FACTORY LTD.

The petitioners failed to prove that the statutory demands were received as required by section 178(1)(a) because there was no evidence of delivery (registered post records absent or returned); consequently they could not rely on the deeming provision and also failed to prove inability to pay under section 177(1)(d); therefore both winding-up petitions were dismissed.

Citation
RE GALAXY ELECTRO-PLATING FACTORY LTD.
Parties
Petitioner: Petitioner; Interested Party: Official Receiver; Respondent/company: Galaxy Electro Plating Factory Limited; Respondent/company: Courage Development (HK) Co. Ltd
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 January 2000
Case Number
HCCW818/1999
Procedural Posture
Companies Winding Up Proceedings / Judgment (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Petitions dismissed
Legal Topics
Statutory Demand, Service of Process, Winding Up Petitions, Inability to Pay Debts, Service by Post, Section 178(1)(a), Section 177(1)(d), Section 356
Source Language
EN
Company Law Insolvency Law Civil Procedure Statutory Demand Service of Process Winding Up Petitions Inability to Pay Debts Service by Post +3 more

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Petitioner

Petitioner

Official Receiver

Interested Party

Galaxy Electro Plating Factory Limited

Respondent/company

Courage Development (HK) Co. Ltd

Respondent/company

Procedural Posture

Companies Winding Up Proceedings / Judgment (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the demands were duly served so as to be statutory demands under section 178(1)(a) of the Companies Ordinance
  2. 2 If not, whether a winding-up order should nevertheless be made under section 177(1)(d) of the Companies Ordinance

Ratio Decidendi

The petitioners failed to prove that the statutory demands were received as required by section 178(1)(a) because there was no evidence of delivery (registered post records absent or returned); consequently they could not rely on the deeming provision and also failed to prove inability to pay under section 177(1)(d); therefore both winding-up petitions were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Petitions dismissed

Orders

  • Both winding-up petitions dismissed