CAO ZHUSHEN v. LAU KWONG KWAN AND OTHERS

CAO ZHUSHEN v. LAU KWONG KWAN AND OTHERS

Because the petitioner accepted that the company was solvent, trading and had incurred liabilities in the course of trade, and because the draft consent order provided sufficient protection together with liberty to apply, the court granted the validation order in terms of paragraphs 1,2,3,4 and 7 of the draft consent order and awarded costs against the petitioner on an indemnity basis due to the lack of merit and unreasonable conduct of the opposition.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 527
Parties
Petitioner: CAO ZHUSHEN; 1st Respondent: LAU KWONG KWAN; 2nd Respondent: LU MANJIANG; 3rd Respondent: WINASIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 January 2019
Case Number
HCCW315/2018
Procedural Posture
Companies (winding Up) / Interlocutory Validation Order Application and Costs Decision (hearing in Chambers)
Outcome
Validation order granted in terms of paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 of the draft consent order; costs awarded to the 1st and 2nd Respondents against the Petitioner on an indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
Validation Order, Costs Indemnity, Interlocutory Litigation, Directors' Authority to Incur Liabilities
Source Language
EN
Company Law Insolvency Law Civil Procedure Validation Order Costs Indemnity Interlocutory Litigation Directors' Authority to Incur Liabilities

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CAO ZHUSHEN

Petitioner

LAU KWONG KWAN

1st Respondent

LU MANJIANG

2nd Respondent

WINASIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Companies (winding Up) / Interlocutory Validation Order Application and Costs Decision (hearing in Chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a validation order should be granted to validate payments/indebtedness incurred by the company in the course of trade
  2. 2 Whether the petitioner's opposition to the draft consent validation order had any merit
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded on an indemnity basis against the petitioner

Ratio Decidendi

Because the petitioner accepted that the company was solvent, trading and had incurred liabilities in the course of trade, and because the draft consent order provided sufficient protection together with liberty to apply, the court granted the validation order in terms of paragraphs 1,2,3,4 and 7 of the draft consent order and awarded costs against the petitioner on an indemnity basis due to the lack of merit and unreasonable conduct of the opposition.

Court Disposition

Validation order granted in terms of paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 of the draft consent order; costs awarded to the 1st and 2nd Respondents against the Petitioner on an indemnity basis.

Orders

  • Order made in terms of paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 of the draft consent order
  • Costs to be paid by the Petitioner to the 1st and 2nd Respondents on an indemnity basis