LAM CHARM AND ANOTHER v. YUNG SHIU CHING AND OTHERS

LAM CHARM AND ANOTHER v. YUNG SHIU CHING AND OTHERS

The court made a winding-up order because the petition contained allegations capable of justifying relief and was properly verified; where a respondent does not contest a petition the court may make an order. Indemnity costs were refused because there was insufficient basis without detailed analysis of the evidence,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
LAM CHARM AND ANOTHER v. YUNG SHIU CHING AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Petitioner: LAM CHARM; 2nd Petitioner: WONG SEK TUNG; 1st Respondent: YUNG SHIU CHING; 2nd Respondent: LEE BING FAI TOMME; 3rd Respondent: CHAN KWOK KEUNG; 4th Respondent: AU LAI CHI; 5th Respondent: HEMPSTONE LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
1 September 2011
Case Number
HCCW279/2010
Procedural Posture
Companies (winding Up) No. 279 of 2010 / Judgment on Costs Following Winding Up Order
Outcome
Winding-up order made in respect of Hempstone Limited; costs awarded on party-and-party basis
Legal Topics
Winding Up, Just and Equitable Winding Up, Provisional Liquidators, Costs, Indemnity Costs
Source Language
en
Company Law Insolvency Civil Procedure Winding Up Just and Equitable Winding Up Provisional Liquidators Costs Indemnity Costs

Source-derived case record

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LAM CHARM

1st Petitioner

WONG SEK TUNG

2nd Petitioner

YUNG SHIU CHING

1st Respondent

LEE BING FAI TOMME

2nd Respondent

CHAN KWOK KEUNG

3rd Respondent

AU LAI CHI

4th Respondent

HEMPSTONE LIMITED

5th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Companies (winding Up) No. 279 of 2010 / Judgment on Costs Following Winding Up Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether court may make a winding-up order when respondent does not contest the petition
  2. 2 Whether respondents' qualified acceptance without admission of liability amounts to non-contestation
  3. 3 Whether indemnity costs should be awarded for alleged delay and prevarication by respondents

Ratio Decidendi

The court made a winding-up order because the petition contained allegations capable of justifying relief and was properly verified; where a respondent does not contest a petition the court may make an order. Indemnity costs were refused because there was insufficient basis without detailed analysis of the evidence, and costs were ordered on a party-and-party basis.

Court Disposition

Winding-up order made in respect of Hempstone Limited; costs awarded on party-and-party basis

Orders

  • Winding-up order made for Hempstone Limited
  • Costs to be paid by the 1st to 4th Respondents on a party-and-party basis