RE GOLDLORY RESTAURANT LTD

RE GOLDLORY RESTAURANT LTD

The court held that section 196(2) gives an unfettered discretion to fix the basis of remuneration in summary cases and that rule 146(2) does not impose the percentage basis as the default; accordingly the appropriate practice is to adopt the time cost basis for remuneration of liquidators in summary cases and to provide for that basis when a summary procedure order under s227F is made.

Citation
RE GOLDLORY RESTAURANT LTD
Parties
Official Receiver/party to Proceedings: Official Receiver; Liquidators' Firm (panel Practitioner): Alvarez & Marsal Asia Ltd; Liquidators' Firm (panel Practitioner): Baker Tilly Hong Kong Business Recovery Limited; Liquidators' Firm (panel Practitioner): Kenny Tam & Co.; Liquidators' Firm (panel Practitioner): Gallant Y.T. Ho & Co.
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 July 2006
Case Number
HCCW1316/2002
Procedural Posture
Companies/insolvency Summary Winding Up (section 227 F) / Determination of Referred Procedural/legal Issue (judgment on Basis of Remuneration)
Outcome
Issue determined: court has discretion under s196(2); percentage is not default; adopt time cost basis as practice for liquidators in summary cases and provide for it on making of summary procedure order under s227F.
Legal Topics
Summary Winding Up, Remuneration of Liquidators, Statutory Interpretation of Companies Ordinance and Rules, Panel T Scheme
Source Language
EN
Company Law Insolvency Law Administrative/regulatory Law Summary Winding Up Remuneration of Liquidators Statutory Interpretation of Companies Ordinance and Rules Panel T Scheme

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Official Receiver

Official Receiver/party to Proceedings

Alvarez & Marsal Asia Ltd

Liquidators' Firm (panel Practitioner)

Baker Tilly Hong Kong Business Recovery Limited

Liquidators' Firm (panel Practitioner)

Kenny Tam & Co.

Liquidators' Firm (panel Practitioner)

Gallant Y.T. Ho & Co.

Liquidators' Firm (panel Practitioner)

Procedural Posture

Companies/insolvency Summary Winding Up (section 227 F) / Determination of Referred Procedural/legal Issue (judgment on Basis of Remuneration)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether remuneration of liquidators appointed under s227F should be assessed on a percentage basis or a time cost basis
  2. 2 Whether rule 146(2) or the Companies (Fees and Percentages) Order makes percentage the default basis absent a court order
  3. 3 Whether the court's discretion under s196(2) is fettered and if special circumstances must be shown to depart from percentage basis

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that section 196(2) gives an unfettered discretion to fix the basis of remuneration in summary cases and that rule 146(2) does not impose the percentage basis as the default; accordingly the appropriate practice is to adopt the time cost basis for remuneration of liquidators in summary cases and to provide for that basis when a summary procedure order under s227F is made.

Court Disposition

Issue determined: court has discretion under s196(2); percentage is not default; adopt time cost basis as practice for liquidators in summary cases and provide for it on making of summary procedure order under s227F.

Orders

  • Time cost basis to be adopted as the basis of remuneration for liquidators in summary cases and to be provided for upon making of the summary procedure order
  • Court reserves costs of earlier hearing on 23 March 2006; Official Receiver and participants to inform the court by letter within 7 days what order as to costs they will seek