RE CHINA SOLAR ENERGY HOLDINGS LTD

RE CHINA SOLAR ENERGY HOLDINGS LTD

The Company and the investor were properly entitled to instruct their own counsel; the Company’s decision to instruct two counsel was a reasonable judgment at the time given the importance and complexity of the issues and therefore the costs order nisi is varied to require the petitioner to pay the costs of both the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1932
Parties
Petitioner: Ankang Limited; Company: China Solar Energy Holdings Limited; Investor: Happy Fountain Limited; Provisional Liquidators: Joint and provisional liquidators; Opposing Contributories: Mr Larm Cheung Hon Peter and Mr Lo Chun Kit; Opposing Contributories: Mr Chong Cheng Keat Patrick; Ms Shi Yu Han; Mr Yang Mao Zhong; Ms Yang Xin Yu
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 July 2018
Case Number
HCCW108/2015
Procedural Posture
Companies Winding Up Proceedings / Decision on Costs
Outcome
Summonses by the Company and the investor to vary the costs order nisi granted
Legal Topics
Winding Up, Provisional Liquidation, Costs Order, Variation of Costs Order, Certificate for Two Counsel
Source Language
en
Company Law Insolvency Civil Procedure Costs Winding Up Provisional Liquidation Costs Order Variation of Costs Order +1 more

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ankang Limited

Petitioner

China Solar Energy Holdings Limited

Company

Happy Fountain Limited

Investor

Joint and provisional liquidators

Provisional Liquidators

Mr Larm Cheung Hon Peter and Mr Lo Chun Kit

Opposing Contributories

Mr Chong Cheng Keat Patrick; Ms Shi Yu Han; Mr Yang Mao Zhong; Ms Yang Xin Yu

Opposing Contributories

Procedural Posture

Companies Winding Up Proceedings / Decision on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Company and the investor are entitled to have their costs paid by the petitioner
  2. 2 Whether a certificate for two counsel for the Company was justified
  3. 3 Whether representation by multiple counsel was unnecessary given provisional liquidators' representation

Ratio Decidendi

The Company and the investor were properly entitled to instruct their own counsel; the Company’s decision to instruct two counsel was a reasonable judgment at the time given the importance and complexity of the issues and therefore the costs order nisi is varied to require the petitioner to pay the costs of both the Company (with a certificate for two counsel) and the investor.

Court Disposition

Summonses by the Company and the investor to vary the costs order nisi granted

Orders

  • Ankang Limited to pay the Company’s costs in respect of the summons with a certificate for two counsel
  • Ankang Limited to pay the investor’s costs in respect of the summons