In re Mezely Trading Ltd.

In re Mezely Trading Ltd.

Adjournment was refused and winding-up order made because the debt was not bona fide disputed and was a judgment on the merits, prior stay applications had been refused, the company could not pay, its alleged solvency was illiquid inter-company debt, and the existence of a mareva injunction or pending appeal alone did not displace the judgment creditor’s prima facie right to a winding-up order.

Citation
In re Mezely Trading Ltd.
Parties
Petitioner: Petitioner (judgment creditor); Company: Mezely Trading Limited; Official Receiver: Official Receiver
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 May 1999
Case Number
HCCW14/1999
Procedural Posture
Companies Winding Up / Adjourned Hearing and Judgment (hearing on Petition; Winding Up Order)
Outcome
Winding-up order made; adjournment/stay refused
Legal Topics
Winding Up, Stay/adjournment, Mareva Injunction, Judgment Debt, Appeal
Source Language
EN
Company Law Insolvency Civil Procedure Winding Up Stay/adjournment Mareva Injunction Judgment Debt Appeal

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Petitioner (judgment creditor)

Petitioner

Mezely Trading Limited

Company

Official Receiver

Official Receiver

Procedural Posture

Companies Winding Up / Adjourned Hearing and Judgment (hearing on Petition; Winding Up Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant an adjournment or stay of a winding-up petition pending appeal
  2. 2 Whether the existence of an appeal displaces the prima facie entitlement of a judgment creditor to a winding-up order
  3. 3 Whether a mareva injunction and asserted balance-sheet solvency justify refusing a winding-up order

Ratio Decidendi

Adjournment was refused and winding-up order made because the debt was not bona fide disputed and was a judgment on the merits, prior stay applications had been refused, the company could not pay, its alleged solvency was illiquid inter-company debt, and the existence of a mareva injunction or pending appeal alone did not displace the judgment creditor’s prima facie right to a winding-up order.

Court Disposition

Winding-up order made; adjournment/stay refused

Orders

  • Winding-up order made against Mezely Trading Limited
  • Application for further adjournment or stay refused