HO MAN KIT and Kong Sze Man Simone the Joint and Several Liquidators of Auragem Company Limited (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation) v. SURE LEAD LTD
The plaintiffs failed to prove the requisite intention to gift and did not establish that there was a transaction on terms providing no consideration; mere transmission of money without evidence of dealings does not establish a transaction at an undervalue. On that basis the claim in respect of transactions at an undervalue must be dismissed.
- Citation
- [2019] HKCFI 2914
- Parties
- Joint and Several Liquidator (plaintiff): Ho Man Kit; Joint and Several Liquidator (plaintiff): Kong Sze Man Simone; Company (in Creditors' Voluntary Liquidation): Auragem Company Limited; Company (in Creditors' Voluntary Liquidation): Eternal Diamonds Corporation Limited; Recipient of Transfers / Defendant: Sure Lead Limited
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 2 December 2019
- Case Number
- HCMP2019/2018
- Procedural Posture
- Applications Under the Companies (winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance / Originating Summons Hearing and Judgment
- Outcome
- Plaintiffs' claims in relation to transactions at an undervalue were dismissed for failure to prove intention to gift or that a no‑consideration transaction had been entered into.
- Legal Topics
- Transactions at Undervalue, Unfair Preference, Liquidators' Recovery Actions, Procedural Objections to Affidavits/affirmations
- Source Language
- EN
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Ho Man Kit
Joint and Several Liquidator (plaintiff)
Kong Sze Man Simone
Joint and Several Liquidator (plaintiff)
Auragem Company Limited
Company (in Creditors' Voluntary Liquidation)
Eternal Diamonds Corporation Limited
Company (in Creditors' Voluntary Liquidation)
Sure Lead Limited
Recipient of Transfers / Defendant
Procedural Posture
Applications Under the Companies (winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance / Originating Summons Hearing and Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the bank transfers (total US$180,400) were gifts or transactions at an undervalue under sections 265D/265E/266/266B of the Ordinance
- 2 Whether the transfers constituted unfair preferences because the companies were insolvent
- 3 Whether the affirmations of Jeffrey Paragas were procedurally defective and inadmissible
Ratio Decidendi
The plaintiffs failed to prove the requisite intention to gift and did not establish that there was a transaction on terms providing no consideration; mere transmission of money without evidence of dealings does not establish a transaction at an undervalue. On that basis the claim in respect of transactions at an undervalue must be dismissed.
Court Disposition
Plaintiffs' claims in relation to transactions at an undervalue were dismissed for failure to prove intention to gift or that a no‑consideration transaction had been entered into.
Orders
- The originating summonses seeking declarations that the transfers were gifts/transactions at an undervalue and void were dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment